Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

more about Science and Religion

Options
12467

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    The question (again):

    Why is me saying science can be wrong implying relativism? Why is it implying that other systems are equal? Why is it discrediting science?

    You now claim that you never held the belief that if science can be wrong this implies relativism,

    I don't claim that now! I always had it! Someone could say "science is not always right" and be a relativist or not be one.
    so can you please explain how you came to the conclusion that I was saying non-scientific theories are equally valid by merely saying science can be wrong in response to a question you put to me?

    Question put to you:

    What ? That science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?

    Answer given by you ( message 14)
    Again, yes.

    Scientific theories can be wrong, even the ones that have tons of evidence supporting them. It is possible (though looks unlikely) that current scientific models of say the age of the Earth are wrong and the idea put forward by Biblical creationism that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is correct.

    This alternative[/n] is not only "unlikely" It is so unlikely that both science and the Church don't hold it as a credible theory!

    So saying "it could be wrong" either says the other interpretation is not equal or the other interpretation is bunkum! Saying " It is possible (though looks unlikely) that current scientific models of say the age of the Earth are wrong and the idea put forward by Biblical creationism that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is correct." is playing into the hands of fundamentalist creationists.


    You stated similar in 23585 on the Creationism thread:
    Simple answer, we don't. Science appears to be working out very well for explaining things so far, but we have no idea if it will be able to explain everything.

    That is far better than simply guessing at an answer, which is what religion (and ID) do. There is no point having an answer if we have no idea (and no way to measure) if it is accurate or not.

    i.e. science is not to be compared with other interpretations without accepting it is "better"to begin with.

    And in 23573
    For something to be science it must be falisiable. That doesn't mean you accept a different theory over this one.

    I have indicated my thoughts on falsifability as a questionable criterion in that it is not all en but compassing. But the issue here is "That doesn't mean you accept a different theory over this one. "

    This seems to be the nub of your problem about me saying your "science could be wrong" point tacitly endorses alternatives to science. I accept you reject relativism and I accept you would not deign to put non scientific interpretations in the same category or at the same level as science but.

    1. You did not clearly say so
    2. SAying things like "science could be all wrong" is supporting the non scientific relativists even if you disagree with them.

    All this is aside from the fact that I am not a relativist and you are a liar if you claim I am.


  • Options
    #93
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    I don't claim that now! I always had it! Someone could say "science is not always right" and be a relativist or not be one.

    You accused me of being a relativist when all I said was science can be wrong.

    I maintain you did that because you believed at the time that someone saying science can be wrong must be a relativist, which is the charge I put to you.

    If that wasn't the case please explain.
    ISAW wrote: »
    This alternative[/n] is not only "unlikely" It is so unlikely that both science and the Church don't hold it as a credible theory!

    And? I never said it was like or a credible theory.

    So again why did you charge me with being a relativist?
    ISAW wrote: »
    So saying "it could be wrong" either says the other interpretation is not equal or the other interpretation is bunkum! Saying " It is possible (though looks unlikely) that current scientific models of say the age of the Earth are wrong and the idea put forward by Biblical creationism that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is correct." is playing into the hands of fundamentalist creationists.

    Is it saying I'm a relativist?
    ISAW wrote: »
    This seems to be the nub of your problem about me saying your "science could be wrong" point tacitly endorses alternatives to science. I accept you reject relativism and I accept you would not deign to put non scientific interpretations in the same category or at the same level as science but.

    1. You did not clearly say so
    2. SAying things like "science could be all wrong" is supporting the non scientific relativists even if you disagree with them.

    Explain the logic of number 2 if you did not hold that saying science can be wrong implies relativism.
    ISAW wrote: »
    All this is aside from the fact that I am not a relativist and you are a liar if you claim I am.

    I have never claimed you were a relativist. I claimed that you believed that if someone holds that science can be wrong you believe they are a relativist. I believe this because I said science can be wrong and you accused me of being a relativist. I pointed out the nonsense of this by forcing you to admit that science can be wrong, and since you clearly aren't a relativist you destroyed your own logic since you are an example of someone who accepts science can be wrong but isn't a relativist. At that point you dropped the charge that I was supporting relativism and started complaining I was saying you were a relativist, when what I was actually doing is pointing out the flaw in your own logic.


  • Options
    #94
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Thank you for pointing out the fallacy of your own position. :rolleyes:

    How totally dishonest! I just showed you
    You asked: What was your objection to me saying science can be wrong if it wasn't that you believed this implied relativism?

    My objection is that you affirmed a consequent!

    You are saying "if it wasn't" and asking me to show some other reason as if my objection shows it WAS that I believed this impiled relativism!

    There is no logical basis for showing it WAS that I believed this implied relativism!
    It does not follow .
    It is a fallacy!
    YOUR fallacy. Not mine!

    You question asks for an objection on the basis that if I was a relativist I would object just that if I was a communist I would have a beard or if I was a witch I would float on water ( assuming all witches float) Then when you see I float you accuse me of being a witch!
    Just because all relativists agree that science can be wrong does not mean I am a relativist when I say saience can be wrong!

    I dont have to give you any other reason for my objection to logically falsify your contention!
    You do know what falsification is?
    Perhaps now you can explain why you attacked me for relativism when I simply said science can be wrong?

    No you didn't simply state that. You referred to creationism as an alternative being right if science is wrong!

    Correct. But then I didn't equate it to other alternatives. You assumed I did based on what I said (science can be wrong) and attacked me for relativism.


    Based on what you said? exactly!
    Message 13 I ask: What ? That science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?

    Your reply : Again, yes.

    It was equated with creationism!

    When you answer YES to a question Could science be wrong and kooks be right? what do you expect someone to assume? That kooks if right are only slightly right and science isn't totally wrong? Or that science is totally wrong and a differnt interpretation right? - which makes the different interpretation superior to science?

    all this by the way is a side issue to the lies you are telling about me! One I did not want to get into until you admit you were lying about me holding a relativist position.


    Hence the charge by me against you that you believed saying science can be wrong means someone is supporting relativism.

    I never stated that anyone saying science can be wrong means they are relativism! I stated someone might or might not be supporting relativism. In fact I believe you believe you are not a relativist but I also believe your statements play into relativists hands by tacitly supporting them even if you don't believe them as I have told you.


    Correct. But then I never said Creationism should be taken seriously. You assumed that is what I was saying, hence my charge against you.

    When you answer YES to a question "Could science be wrong and kooks be right?" what do you expect someone to assume? That kooks if right are only slightly right and science isn't totally wrong? Or that science is totally wrong and a differnt interpretation right? - which makes the different interpretation superior to science?

    and your charge against me isnt about me saying you are a relativist which I never said . Youyr original statements

    1. claimed I was a relativist
    2. Claimed I didnt understand Kuhn

    and attempted to ridiculed me on that

    1 and 2 are lies!
    Correct. But then I never attempted to equate non-scientific ideas with science. You assumed that is what I was saying, hence my charge against you.

    When you answer YES to a question "Could science be wrong and kooks be right?" what do you expect someone to assume? That kooks if right are only slightly right and science isn't totally wrong? Or that science is totally wrong and a differnt interpretation right? - which makes the different interpretation superior to science?
    Correct. But then I never said Creationism is likely. You assumed that is what I was saying, hence my charge against you.

    When you answer YES to a question "Could science be wrong and kooks be right?" what do you expect someone to assume? That kooks if right are only slightly right and science isn't totally wrong? Or that science is totally wrong and a different interpretation right? - which makes the different interpretation superior to science?

    Your assumption that I was support relativism existed only in your head,

    When you answer YES to a question "Could science be wrong and kooks be right?" what do you expect someone to assume? That kooks if right are only slightly right and science isn't totally wrong? Or that science is totally wrong and a different interpretation right? - which makes the different interpretation superior to science?

    your words above
    based on what I said
    you yourself admit my position is based on what you said.
    and it is existed there because you believed that if science can be wrong that implies relativism.

    Yet again you return to your original LIE!

    3. you believed that if science can be wrong that implies relativism.

    I didn't believe 3 that is a lie! You keep returning to restate this lie when I have shown you counter evidence ( even though that is noit required since the burden of proof is on you to support your lie) and you provide NOTHING as evidence!

    It is quite annoyiong that you continually rehearse this you believed that if science can be wrong that implies relativism.
    Without ANY support for it!

    And then run off into bullsh1t examples of fallacies like "well if you didn't believe it then way did you state P because anyone who did believe it you would also have stated P"

    Stalin likes paintings . If I like the same paintings does that mean I have all Stalin's opinions?
    when I said science is wrong you thought I was implying relativism.

    When you said kooks could be a credible alternative I thought you were supporting relativists whether or not you believe you were doing so.
    That is my charge against you. You have provide no other explanation for why when I said science can be wrong you would attack me for relativism,

    That is a fallacy. I don't have to show someone with a beard who isnt a communist to logically prove
    P All communists have beard
    Q Isaw has a beard

    Therefore ISAW is a communist!
    so I stand over my charge.

    Indeed you stand over it based on fallacy.
    But It is a lie to cionceal another lie! The other lie is not about what I think oif your position but your ORIGINAL claim that I believed that if science isnt always right then other interpretations are equal. i.e.

    1. I was a relativist
    2. I dont understant Kuhn

    You have run away from these issue!
    Correct. But then I never said it was strong or extraordinary. You assumed that is what I was saying, hence my charge against you.

    WRong! I have given the reasons as to how your reoly supopoorts relitivists.

    But YOUR CHARGE AGAINST me isnt this straw man you invented about what I believe you position to be

    It is what YOU expressed my position to be!

    1. I was a relativist
    2. I dont understand Kuhn

    1 and 2 are lies!
    You are avoiding the issues of 1 and 2.


  • Options
    #95
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    You accused me of being a relativist when all I said was science can be wrong.

    Liar! that was NOT all you said.

    Q: What ? That science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?
    Your answer: Again, yes.

    "Again" as in you are clarifying that you meant science could be wrong and kooks right.
    I maintain you did that because you believed at the time that someone saying science can be wrong must be a relativist, which is the charge I put to you.

    What ****e! "The charge I put to you" as If I have to prove a negative!
    If you claim something the burden of proof is on you!
    Care to prove it?

    The charge you put to me was by the way:

    1. I didn't understand Kuhn
    2. I held that [message 4] since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.

    Care to prove 1 and 2? Please stop dodging these lies!

    So again why did you charge me with being a relativist?

    It came AFTER the above since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other. in message 4 but :

    Message 13 I ask: What ? That science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?

    Your reply : Again, yes.

    It was equated with creationism!

    When you answer YES to a question Could science be wrong and kooks be right? what do you expect someone to assume? That kooks if right are only slightly right and science isn't totally wrong? Or that science is totally wrong and a differnt interpretation right? - which makes the different interpretation superior to science?

    all this by the way is a side issue to the lies you are telling about me! One I did not want to get into until you admit you were lying about me holding a relativist position.
    Is it saying I'm a relativist?

    Im saying you play into their hands. My personal belief is you believe you are not a relativist but I don't claim that since I don't think I can support it sufficiently. It is just my opinion but it is irrelevant anyway.

    2. Saying things like "science could be all wrong" is supporting the non scientific relativists even if you disagree with them.
    Explain the logic of number 2 if you did not hold that saying science can be wrong implies relativism.

    I do not hold that saying science can be wrong implies relativism.

    This alternative[/n] is not only "unlikely" It is so unlikely that both science and the Church don't hold it as a credible theory!

    So saying "it could be wrong" either says the other interpretation is not equal or the other interpretation is bunkum! Saying " It is possible (though looks unlikely) that current scientific models of say the age of the Earth are wrong and the idea put forward by Biblical creationism that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is correct." is playing into the hands of fundamentalist creationists.

    Either alternative interpretations are to be considered on an equal basis or they aren't. If they are you imply other systems are equally valid discredit science and endorse relativists. If they aren't you are not making any strong claim since even if science can be wrong no other serious alternatives are there to be compared with science.

    When you answer YES to a question "Could science be wrong and kooks be right?" what do you expect someone to assume? That kooks if right are only slightly right and science isn't totally wrong? Or that science is totally wrong and a different interpretation right? - which makes the different interpretation superior to science?

    I have gone over "affirming a consequent" above please go and read something about it. apparently using witches or men with beards is not something that you understand
    Care to show me how you were not affirming a consequent in asking tha above?
    I have never claimed you were a relativist.

    LIAR!
    YOU claimed I held that position myself! That since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.

    That is relativism!
    By the definition you yourself supplied in message 4:
    a case for relativism: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science.

    a quote followed by your comments on it accusing me:
    You do certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
    I claimed that you believed that if someone holds that science can be wrong you believe they are a relativist.

    You claimed I was a relativist and hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.

    which is
    a case for relativism: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science.

    and you claimed that based on your additional claim that I do not understand Kuhn!

    message 14:
    You are constantly appealing to the ideas of people you have read though often one gets the impression you don't understand what the heck they were talking about.
    These are verbatim quotes from you!
    How ironic your comment in 13 sems
    ISAW you hardly ever go on what I actually state, something I've had to spend a great deal of time correcting in your replies to me and something the cases above demonstrate quite well.

    LOL. Verbatim!
    I believe this because I said science can be wrong and you accused me of being a relativist.

    Nope. i accused you of supporting postmodern scientific relativists by endorsing pseudo science. something the Church does not do!
    I pointed out the nonsense of this by forcing you to admit that science can be wrong, and since you clearly aren't a relativist you destroyed your own logic since you are an example of someone who accepts science can be wrong but isn't a relativist.

    Now you are claiming I am NOT a relativist! LOL! What a walking contradiction!

    your definition supplied by you:
    a case for relativism: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science.
    followed by
    You do certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.

    THAT is SAYING I am a relativist!

    Your exact words!
    At that point you dropped the charge that I was supporting relativism and started complaining I was saying you were a relativist, when what I was actually doing is pointing out the flaw in your own logic.

    These words are in post 4 before your LATER straw man argument that I was claiming anything about you! My first reference to relativism not to YOU but to the pohilosophy are in message 6.

    My opening message contained the words:
    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/SciLit.html
    I suggest any preachy anti christian fundamentalist atheists be directed to this page before making pronouncements on the certainty of science based in empirical measurement as opposed to religion based on illogical belief.


  • Options
    #96
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    LIAR!
    YOU claimed I held that position myself! That since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.

    Lets nip this is the bud because you are consistently using this straw man as an excuse to not answer my question.

    I NEVER called you a relativist. I said that you believe that if science can be wrong then that implies relativism. I said that because when I said science can be wrong you accused me of being a relativist.

    If I claim you believe that to support Obama is to be a communist I am not saying you are a communist! :rolleyes:

    I'm saying that you believe that to support Obama is to be a communist.

    Equally when I say you believe that if science is wrong that means relativism I'm not saying you are a relativist. I'm saying you believe that believing science is wrong is to believe in relativism.

    You quote me saying that to you!

    I still maintain that you held to the notion that if no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.

    You only dropped this utterly illogical position when I demonstrated to you that you also believe that science is not infallible yet are not a relativist.

    I used your lack of belief in relativist TO PROVE MY POINT. So why the heck would I be calling you relativist. Relativism was your accusation against me because I maintain that science can be wrong

    Which is like proving to you that you in fact support Obama but are not a communist, thus nullifying your claim that to support Obama is to be a communist.

    I do find it hilarious that even after all this discussion you still don't get that this is what I was doing. You must follow only 10% of our conversation at any one time


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    Message 13 I ask: What ? That science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?

    Your reply : Again, yes.

    It was equated with creationism!

    No it wasn't. It was only equated with creationism in your head because you held that to the idea that believing science can be wrong is implying relativism. So when I said science can be wrong you jumped to me saying relativism.

    That was you messing up ISAW. Stop trying to make this out that I'm calling you a liar, the only thing I've ever accused you of is this.
    ISAW wrote: »
    When you answer YES to a question Could science be wrong and kooks be right? what do you expect someone to assume?

    I expect someone who understands science and relativism to assume I mean exactly what I say, that it is possible science can could be wrong and any alternative theory, including Creationism, correct instead.

    And in case there is an doubt I'm implying you don't understand science.
    ISAW wrote: »
    all this by the way is a side issue to the lies you are telling about me! One I did not want to get into until you admit you were lying about me holding a relativist position.

    I have never told a single lie about you.

    You believed that me saying science can be wrong meant that I must be supporting relativism and I called you on this.

    You are now just back tracking trying to say you never assumed I supported relativism even though you know you can't find any quote from me where I actually said I supported relativism (and quite a few where I said the opposite)

    Face it, you messed up. :rolleyes:

    You assumed I held a position I never did based on faulty logic in your own head. When I pointed that out to you you went on the defensive and tried to make it out that I was accusing you of something unreasonable.


  • Options
    #98
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    No it wasn't. It was only equated with creationism in your head

    It is in the actual written words used ! Are you denying message 13 contained the words:
    " Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative" as part of the question i asked?

    So it WAS NOT something ONLY in my head! It was actually written down in the question to which you replied "YES"!
    because you held that to the idea that believing science can be wrong is implying relativism.

    Back to your lies! I never held to that idea and I never claimed that believing science is wrong can be used to logically conlude that person is a relativist!

    I LATER ( after you accused Me with the lies you continually rehearse about me being a relativist and not understanding Kuhn - something you try to avoid with your straw man weak epistemological arguments)
    commented that you can't seriously endorse the idea of kook theories as an alternative to science since in so doing one degrades science and promotes kooks.

    So when I said science can be wrong you jumped to me saying relativism.

    This is your straw man! You said science can be wrong AND kook alternatives be right!

    Me: What ? That science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?
    you:http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68467333&postcount=13
    Again, yes.

    Scientific theories can be wrong, even the ones that have tons of evidence supporting them. It is possible (though looks unlikely) that current scientific models of say the age of the Earth are wrong and the idea put forward by Biblical creationism that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is correct.
    That was you messing up ISAW. Stop trying to make this out that I'm calling you a liar,

    Another straw man! The truth is I am calling YOU a liar! You keep getting all muddled up
    I am calling you a liar because

    1. ISAW does not understand Kuhn or anyone else he quotes.
    2. ISAW holds since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other

    1 and 2 are lies!

    I expect someone who understands science and relativism to assume I mean exactly what I say,

    LOL a relativist might say there is no exact meaning!
    What EXACTLY you stated
    Message 4

    A common misinterpretation...[of Kuhn] is a case for relativism: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science. Kuhn vehemently denies this interpretation and states that when a scientific paradigm is replaced by a new one, albeit through a complex social process, the new one is always better, not just different.

    You do certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.

    [/quote]
    that it is possible science can could be wrong and any alternative theory, including Creationism, correct instead.

    Yup. And anyone who believes such kook nonsense is correct is a kook!

    And in case there is an doubt I'm implying you don't understand science.


    I have never told a single lie about you.


    Adding to the lies now?
    since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other
    Is that my belief? Yes or no?
    Do I hold to that belief? Yes or no?
    Did I ever hold to it? Yes or no?

    Now if and when you say NO to all of the above you can get on to admitting you were WRONG in claiming I hold since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other

    And when you do that I will say you aren't telling lies about me any more.

    Otherwise you ARE lying about me since I do not hold since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other. It is is not true . You cant show it to be true and I have shown you and told you it is untrue and I do not hold that position.

    But you keep coming back and claiming I hold or held at any time that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other
    You believed that me saying science can be wrong meant that I must be supporting relativism and I called you on this.

    No I didn't. I didn't know for certain. When you stated that creationism could be right I was incredulous and did not accept you could make such a statement as a principle of science. You may still not believe in kook theories but saying science has to accept that other kook theories could be right is just endorsing relativism as Kuhn defined it in the quote you offered only one or two messages before you were asked that question.
    You are now just back tracking trying to say you never assumed I supported relativism

    That isnt true either. I didnt know at first and after you incredulous remark about creationism as an alternative to science being possibly true I did accept that you were endorsing it and rejecting the reason in science.


    Her eis a way THe Pope put it.http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

    MEETING WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF SCIENCE
    Faith, Reason and the University
    Memories and Reflections
    The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this:
    is contrary to God's nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.[7]

    even though you know you can't find any quote from me where I actually said I supported relativism (and quite a few where I said the opposite)

    Relativists not relativism. One might not like Nazis or believe their theories but still give them support.

    You offered a definition for relativism. You claimed I was a person that subscribed to it.
    You are now trying to conceal this lie!
    The points about you came later

    You stated that "science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?"
    You stated that "It is possible (though looks unlikely) that current scientific models of say the age of the Earth are wrong and the idea put forward by Biblical creationism that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is correct."

    If science could be wrong and kook theory right


    You assumed I held a position I never did based on faulty logic in your own head. When I pointed that out to you you went on the defensive and tried to make it out that I was accusing you of something unreasonable.

    YOU are the one that claimed all science is about being accurate!

    If it is accurate claims can be measured or shown true or false

    You claimed I held since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other

    You can't support this ( burden of proof on you)http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

    Your only support is a straw man http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
    That I claimed you were a relativist. ( in fact I claimed you supported relativists)
    which has nothing to do with you claiming I was one.

    Aniother straw man was an appeal to ignorance i.e. why else would I accuse you of something unless I was a relativist since relativists would accuse you of the same thing
    It is affirming a consequent!
    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html

    So you can't show something to be true.

    Lie= knowing something isn not true and continually claiming it to be true.

    You continually claim I held or hold that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other

    Given you cant support your claim and continually claim it you are a liar!


  • Options
    #99
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Lets nip this is the bud because you are consistently using this straw man as an excuse to not answer my question.

    Nope. I let it go. Even after you tried to redicule me. You continually raise it. so when you raise it you have to defend it!
    I NEVER called you a relativist.

    Liar!
    Your definition of relativism:[message 4]http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68463591&postcount=4
    a case for relativism: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science.
    IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY YOU calling me a relativist by the very definition supplied by you
    You do certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.

    Immediately followed by an Annie Hall Clip in an attempt to redicule me and claim I dont understand Kuhn!

    I said that you believe that if science can be wrong then that implies relativism.

    You stated I
    certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
    If I claim you believe that to support Obama is to be a communist I am not saying you are a communist!

    Here is whatt you claimed:
    certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.

    Not
    support those who hold the notion
    but
    certainly seem to hold the notion

    I'm saying that you believe that to support Obama is to be a communist.

    You are equivocating!

    Here is what you stated:certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.

    Was whay you stated wrong?

    Did you actually mean to state something else?

    If so admit you were wrong and don't try to lie about it later and ressurect it and we can move on.
    Equally when I say you believe that if science is wrong that means relativism I'm not saying you are a relativist. I'm saying you believe that believing science is wrong is to believe in relativism.

    More equivocation
    You stated
    certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.


    Immediately following your definition:
    relativism: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science.
    I still maintain that you held to the notion that if no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.

    Which is the lie you keep resurrecting even when you are skewered by logic!


    I NEVER made such a claim!

    You cant porvide ANY evidence I did. You pretend that isnt what you mean when challenged and then later you rehearse the lie!
    You only dropped this utterly illogical position

    Ther you go again lying and re entering the lie!
    I NEVER called you a relativist.

    Becames contradicted by you held to the notion that if no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.

    I never held such a notion. that is a lie!
    I used your lack of belief in relativist TO PROVE MY POINT.

    Belief or lack of it has nothing to do with logical proof!

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html

    or in this instance:
    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html
    So why the heck would I be calling you relativist.

    That is a different issue. I do not know. It may be because you prefer to lie rather than honestly admit you are wrong or contradictory. I honestly don't know. But it is off topic.
    Which is like proving to you that you in fact support Obama but are not a communist, thus nullifying your claim that to support Obama is to be a communist.


    More fey logic based on false premise.
    I do find it hilarious that even after all this discussion you still don't get that this is what I was doing. You must follow only 10% of our conversation at any one time

    Making sweeping statements about your grand strategy isnt dismnissing the lies that

    1. You claimed I held to relativism as defined by Kuhn
    2. You claimed I didnt understand Kuhn.

    It is right there in message 4!


  • Options
    #100
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    It is in the actual written words used ! Are you denying message 13 contained the words:
    " Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative" as part of the question i asked?

    So it WAS NOT something ONLY in my head! It was actually written down in the question to which you replied "YES"!

    Please quote where you think I said Creationism is equal to science (never mind you do that below, thus demonstrating my point once again about your faulty belief). :rolleyes:

    You asked me could science be wrong and Creationism correct, and I said yes. That is a truthful answer to the question you asked me. I later explained that I thought it was very unlikely that Creationism was correct but you ignored that bit and continued to charge me with believing non-scientific theories are as equally valid as scientific ones, a conclusion you reached based on your own faulty logic.

    If you had asked me is Creationism equal to scientific theories I would have said no. But that isn't what you asked me.

    So again ALL IN YOUR HEAD :rolleyes:
    ISAW wrote: »
    You said science can be wrong AND kook alternatives be right!

    And did I say there was an equal chance of this? No.

    Did I say that means that "kook alternatives" should be treated as equals to scientific theories? No.

    Did you assume that must have been what I was saying based on YOUR faulty logic. Yes.

    Did I point out this faulty logic to you? Yes.

    Did you start back tracking straight away once you realized your mistake? Yes.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Yup. And anyone who believes such kook nonsense is correct is a kook!

    I agree. I don't believe Creationism correct, so I guess that means I'm not a kook.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Now if and when you say NO to all of the above you can get on to admitting you were WRONG in claiming I hold since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other

    And when you do that I will say you aren't telling lies about me any more.

    I stand over exactly what I said.

    I said You do certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other. It seemed that way because I could see no other explanation for why you were accusing me of relativism over what I said.

    And I still believe that and you provided more evidence for this below.

    I stand over that because when I said science could be wrong (ie not perfect or infallible) and Creationism could be right you charged me with support relativism and saying that I must believe therefore that Creationism and pixies and Santa are equally valid as science, even though I never stated anything close to this.

    I have asked you to explain how you took this jump of logic if you didn't hold to this position I've charged you with and you haven't, you have simply done everything in your power to avoid answer that question.

    So I stand over exactly what I said.
    ISAW wrote: »
    No I didn't. I didn't know for certain.

    You have provided no other explanation that explains your responses to my replies. I stand over what I said.
    ISAW wrote: »
    When you stated that creationism could be right I was incredulous and did not accept you could make such a statement as a principle of science.

    Why were you incredulous when I said this?

    Perhaps because at the time you held that if science wasn't perfect it must mean I was saying Creationism is equal in valid and worth and so when I say science isn't perfect you jump to the conclusion that this is my position on relativism? Just a thought :rolleyes:
    ISAW wrote: »
    You may still not believe in kook theories but saying science has to accept that other kook theories could be right is just endorsing relativism

    You are doing it again!! Seriously, read back what you are posting.

    It is ONLY saying science has to accept other kook theories (ie they are of equal valid) IF YOU BELIEVE THAT SCIENCE NOT BEING PERFECT MEANS OTHER NON-SCIENTIFIC SYSTEMS ARE OF EQUAL VALUE.

    Saying Creationism could be right is only saying it is equal to science is you hold to this faulty logic.

    I don't hold to this faulty logic, which is why I NEVER said science was equal to Creationism.

    Thank you for very kindly providing me all the support I need for my original charge against you. :rolleyes:

    You have confirmed for me that what I thought you were saying, what you seemed to be saying, was what you were saying.

    The faulty logic exists ONLY in your head ISAW.

    Seriously, why do you do this to yourself?


  • Options
    #101
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Please quote where you think I said Creationism is equal to science (never mind you do that below, thus demonstrating my point once again about your faulty belief). :rolleyes:

    You asked me could science be wrong and Creationism correct, and I said yes.

    Yes AFTER you quoted Kuhn saiud I didnt understanf Kuhn referred to woody allen and claimed I was a relativist.
    That is a truthful answer to the question you asked me.

    So what? i didn't claim you lied about it! Your actual lie is saying you never claimed I was a relativist or subscribe to relativism as defined by you. that is a lie!
    I later explained that I thought it was very unlikely that Creationism was correct

    So what this isn't about what you or i think but about whether the claims we made can be shown to be true or not. It isnt about opinion it is about claiming something is a fact.
    I am not a relativist. that is a fact.
    You claimed I was that is a fact
    You are lying if you claim I am or if you say you did not claim I am.
    And did I say there was an equal chance of this? No.

    Did I say that means that "kook alternatives" should be treated as equals to scientific theories? No.

    What does a phrase like "science could be 100 per cent wrong and kook theories like paranormalism 100 per cent right" mean? It is either saying paranormal is acceptable or it is kook nonsense.

    I agree. I don't believe Creationism correct, so I guess that means I'm not a kook.

    No you are only a liar.
    I stand over exactly what I said.

    I said You do certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.

    It is a lie! I don't hold to such a belief and you cant show that I do!
    It seemed that way because I could see no other explanation for why you were accusing me of relativism over what I said.


    Rubbish! "Relativism" was first raised by YOU when you defined it and accused me of it!
    In Post 4.

    I said you endorsed relativists and kooks and I still say that

    Do you believe science could be wrong and kook nonsense 100 per cent right?

    I stand over that because when I said science could be wrong (ie not perfect or infallible) and Creationism could be right you charged me with support relativism and saying that I must believe therefore that Creationism and pixies and Santa are equally valid as science, even though I never stated anything close to this.

    That came later AFTER going over this several times. Santa only arrived on page 6 or so!

    The truth is you made claims you couldnt support
    1. I didnt understand Kuhn
    2. I was a relativist

    You tried to ridicule me
    I pointed out yoy were wrong and left it at that

    But you just keepo coming back re asserting your lie!
    I can NOT leave that go

    1 and 2 are lies! No amount of misdirection will get you away from that.

    So I stand over exactly what I said.


    Then you are a liar!
    1 and 2 are lies!
    You have provided no other explanation that explains your responses to my replies. I stand over what I said.

    Straw man! 1 and 2 a lies! Nor do I have to prove a negative or explain anything! The burden is on you to prove 1 and 2.
    You cant since they are lies!
    Why were you incredulous when I said this?

    Because I didnt believe you would endorse kook nonsense by saying it could be true and that was a central principle of science!
    Perhaps because at the time you held that if science wasn't perfect it must mean I was saying Creationism is equal in valid and worth and so when I say science isn't perfect you jump to the conclusion that this is my position on relativism? Just a thought :rolleyes:

    Only if you say
    A: science may not be perfect and actually specifically state creationism as an alternative to scince might well be true and
    B that science holds A as a central priniple


    I have showed you the "faith and reason" position on this!
    It is ONLY saying science has to accept other kook theories (ie they are of equal valid) IF YOU BELIEVE THAT SCIENCE NOT BEING PERFECT MEANS OTHER NON-SCIENTIFIC SYSTEMS ARE OF EQUAL VALUE.

    No it isn't! You say it is a central principle of science that science could be totally wrong ( or even more wrong than alternatives) and kookiness 100 per cent right ( or even better most of the time) . i.e. not equal but the other one more accurate than science.
    Calling them equal isnt the only kook option!

    Saying Creationism could be right is only saying it is equal to science is you hold to this faulty logic.

    No . Saying it is right is saying science is wrong! You seem to not be aware of boolean operators.


    But the real issue is your lying aboiut me being a relativist and you deny this but again and agasin rehearse it when you get the chance . When challenged you try a series of straw man arguments.

    e truth is you made claims you couldnt support
    1. I didnt understand Kuhn
    2. I was a relativist

    You tried to ridicule me
    I pointed out yoy were wrong and left it at that

    But you just keepo coming back re asserting your lie!
    I can NOT leave that go

    1 and 2 are lies! No amount of misdirection will get you away from that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    This is a general request to all involved. Please take some of the bile out of this debate. Love, not hate.


  • Options
    #103
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    Yes AFTER you quoted Kuhn saiud I didnt understanf Kuhn referred to woody allen and claimed I was a relativist.

    No, it was the first thing you asked me
    Really? So science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right? I doubt you really believe that.

    Now, please quote where you think I said Creationism is equal to science.
    ISAW wrote: »
    So what? i didn't claim you lied about it!

    I didn't say you claimed I lied about it.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Your actual lie is saying you never claimed I was a relativist or subscribe to relativism as defined by you. that is a lie!

    No it isn't. I never claimed you were relativist. I claimed it seemed that you held to the position that if science can be wrong that implies relativism.

    I claimed that because you attacked me for relativism when what I said was that science can be wrong.

    I stand over that claim.
    ISAW wrote: »
    So what this isn't about what you or i think but about whether the claims we made can be shown to be true or not.

    This is about you making a faulty assumption over what you think I was saying based on your faulty ideas and then refusing to back down.
    ISAW wrote: »
    I am not a relativist. that is a fact.
    You claimed I was that is a fact

    No it isn't. Once again the imaginary conversation you think we are having in your head has let you down.

    Again if I say it seems like you think support Obama makes you a communist I'm not saying you are communist. I'm not saying you are a communist even if we establish that you actually support Obama. I'm saying that you seem to hold the position that supporting Obama makes you a communist.

    You seemed (and still seem) to hold the position that science can be wrong means relativism.

    I have never charged you with being a relativism (that would make no sense if I did), and I suspect that you are focusing on this so much simply to avoid having to answer my questions properly.

    If anything I'm charging you with not understand that science could be wrong, Creationism could be right, and that this doesn't mean you have to take Creationism as equal which is what it strongly seems like you are saying you would have to do if you believed science could be wrong.

    Now, what part of that do you still not understand?
    ISAW wrote: »
    You are lying if you claim I am or if you say you did not claim I am.

    You can't find the quote where I called you a relativist. That should tell you something. You can only find the quote where I said it seems like you hold to the notion that science being wrong means relativism.

    That is not calling you a relativist any more than me saying you seem to hold to the notion that support Obama means communism means I'm calling you are a communist.

    You do understand what holding to a notion means, right? If I say you hold to the notion that gay people dress well I'm not calling you gay. If I say you hold to the notion that pilots are well trained I'm not calling you a pilot.

    I'm at a loss how to explain this to you any clearer :rolleyes:
    ISAW wrote: »
    No you are only a liar.

    I point out the flaw in your logic and you just keep calling me a liar over and over.

    I could resort to your level but I won't.
    ISAW wrote: »
    It is a lie! I don't hold to such a belief and you cant show that I do!
    I've already showed you do and you have no alternative explanation. Your silence on that question and your insistence on focusing solely on the false claim that I said you were a relativist is telling.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Rubbish! "Relativism" was first raised by YOU when you defined it and accused me of it!
    In Post 4.

    I never accused you of it. I quoted that to show you that science is wrong does not mean relativism. You continued to charge me with believing Creationism and Santa are of equal value to science, something i never stated.
    ISAW wrote: »
    I said you endorsed relativists and kooks and I still say that

    So you admit it now.

    And I say the ONLY way you could reach such a faulty conclusion is if you held to the notion that saying science is fallailble implies relativism. Which is my charge against you.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Do you believe science could be wrong and kook nonsense 100 per cent right?
    Yes, of course I do. Again I can't disprove "kook nonsense" and as such I cannot say infallibly that it cannot be right.

    Let me guess what you are going to say now based on the faulty logic you claim you never adhered to....

    THAT MUST MEAN I'M A RELATIVIST AND HOLD "KOOK NONSENSE" AS EQUAL TO SCIENCE.

    Ummm, I wonder why you would think that? Perhaps because you hold to the faulty idea I have claimed you do all along?

    :rolleyes:
    ISAW wrote: »
    That came later AFTER going over this several times. Santa only arrived on page 6 or so!

    Yes. After 6 pages you still didn't get it and were still holding to the faulty logic. In fact you still seem to be holding to it.
    ISAW wrote: »
    1 and 2 are lies!

    I never claimed 2. That is your little straw man. I stand over 1.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Because I didnt believe you would endorse kook nonsense by saying it could be true and that was a central principle of science!

    And why would you assume saying it could be true is endorsing it?

    Because you believe ..... ;)

    Carefully now
    ISAW wrote: »
    No it isn't! You say it is a central principle of science that science could be totally wrong ( or even more wrong than alternatives) and kookiness 100 per cent right ( or even better most of the time) . i.e. not equal but the other one more accurate than science.
    Calling them equal isnt the only kook option!

    I didn't call them equal. You assumed I did. Because ..... ;)
    ISAW wrote: »
    No . Saying it is right is saying science is wrong! You seem to not be aware of boolean operators.

    Please quote me where I said it was right.

    Once again you betray your assumptions by making up things I never said based on what you assume my position is.
    ISAW wrote: »
    But the real issue is your lying aboiut me being a relativist

    No the real issue here is the faulty logic you held entering this discussion, and the lengths you will go to back track. I never called you a relativist and at know point in this discussion did I ever believe you were. Why would I, being a relativist was what you were accusing me of.

    Once again using the Obama analogy. I say I support Obama. You assume I must be a communist then, I explain I'm not while saying you seem to hold to this idea that because I support Obama I must be a communist. Now, I'm not calling you a communist you dingbat. Why would I call you a communist.

    Replace Obama with science can be wrong and communist with relativist. I never called you a relativist. That would make no sense since I was defending myself from calling me one.

    Again you must go through these discussions understanding 10% of what I'm saying :rolleyes:
    ISAW wrote: »
    and you deny this but again and agasin rehearse it when you get the chance

    If at any point in the future you think I'm calling you a relativist I can tell you categorically I'm not and you have misunderstood me.

    I still maintain that until I explained it to you you didn't understand Kuhn. I would be interested in how you plan to prove you did. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #104
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    No, it was the first thing you asked me

    No it wasnt!
    You are again wrong!
    The first question I asked you was
    "Ever heard of Dogma?"
    Now, please quote where you think I said Creationism is equal to science.

    Already did show wher you equated them:

    You said science wasn't certain I asked you to clarify what you mean by that was science not certain but the best way or were kook things to be compared to science and seriously considered as an alternativ. I have clarified what thwe weak non extraordinary claim of "sciecne isnt certain " since ( as I have clarified what the Church position is on unreasonable beliefs = The Church position as related to the SAME Greek rationality on which science is based ) but here is where I asked you if you were seriously saying comparing kook alternatives to science is a principle of science.


    Message 6 http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68466495&postcount=6


    I ask in reply to you saying
    Of course I believe it, it is a fundamental principle of science.

    Note you are saying two things here
    1. that you believe it
    2. that it is a principle of science

    I asked you to clarify the it:
    What ? That science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?
    No it isn't! One isn't comparing like with like when comparing kooks with rational people.


    your answer in 13: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68467333&postcount=13
    Again, yes.

    Scientific theories can be wrong, even the ones that have tons of evidence supporting them. It is possible (though looks unlikely) that current scientific models of say the age of the Earth are wrong and the idea put forward by Biblical creationism that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is correct.

    I didn't say you claimed I lied about it.

    There you go again! Off on the straw man!
    Stop trying to make this out that I'm calling you a liar,

    the iterative "you said I said..." turtles all the way down trick wont work on mr.
    I didn't say you called me a liar.
    I am calling you a liar.
    But Ill ask you to produce ANY evidence where i made ANY claim you called me a liar.
    Can you do that?
    Well then your claim that I claimed you called me a liar is false.
    If you re assert it it is an additional lie.

    No it isn't. I never claimed you were relativist. I claimed it seemed that you held to the position that if science can be wrong that implies relativism.

    Backing down now. Fair enough. So
    "It seems certain that you are a relativist"
    means " you are not a relativist"

    LOL http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68495322&postcount=67
    If you are just going to start swapping words around as if they mean the same thing when they don't this discussion is going to end up being even more pointless than before. I choose my words carefully


    What a Humpty Dumpty world you live in.

    By the way you DIDN'T just say I believed science is relativism you also claimed I was one!
    You do certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.

    Relativist hold to the notion of relativism.
    : the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science.

    And you also claimed I misinterpreted Kuhn and knew little of the people to which I refer.
    I claimed that because you attacked me for relativism when what I said was that science can be wrong.

    I stand over that claim.

    1. why would you being a relativist or not have anything at all to do with you claiming I am one? Did you not read the reference on the fallacy of http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index

    appeal to consequences of belief

    2. What about the claim I know nothing about Kuhn?

    You seemed (and still seem) to hold the position that science can be wrong means relativism.

    There you go again lying!

    What evidence is there that I hold such a position that that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.? Don't straw man it into me later calling you a relativist! Why would you being a relativist or not have anything at all to do with you claiming I am one?


    I have never charged you with being a relativism (that would make no sense if I did), and I suspect that you are focusing on this so much simply to avoid having to answer my questions properly.

    Yes you did!
    You do certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.

    and you added a poke about not understanding Kuhn with the Annie Hall video in an attempt to ridicule me.

    And this was directly after you offered a definition of relativism


    ( YOU brought up the subject)
    relativism: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science. Kuhn vehemently denies this interpretation
    You can't find the quote where I called you a relativist. That should tell you something.

    I can and you are lying again! Hint: Message 4
    You can only find the quote where I said it seems like you hold to the notion that science being wrong means relativism.

    It certainly seems you are lying.

    that message 4 was the first message you brought it up.

    Message 23
    You seem to be holding to this notion that all systems of arriving at belief and knowledge are equal. ...
    All of that is nonsense and the opposite of what Kuhn was actually saying.

    Message 67:
    your insistence that because I believe a scientific theory cannot be considered infallible (which you do as well apparently) and I believe that we must always hold that a scientific theory might be wrong even if this seems very unlikely (which you do as well apparently) I must consider science as equal to Creationism.

    i.e. you attribute "not believing in perfection = relativism" to me.

    message 67:
    walk me through the logic you are using in your head that gets from any scientific theory might be wrong to every non-scientific idea out there is of equal value to a scientific one and must be entertained equally?

    message 75:
    How do you get from A (what I said) to be B (what you think is the conclusion of what I said) particularly when now (strangely enough) you are saying that science being wrong does not mean non-science is equally valid.

    If you genuinely believed that back then as you claim to now how did you get from A to B?


    Message 75
    If you believe that the fact that science can be wrong means it means that non-scientific theories are elevated to the same level of it (which you continuously accuse me of implying by merely saying that science can be wrong) then you hold that if a system is not perfect that means all systems are equal.

    This is your faulty logic ISAW, not mine.

    I think 5 examples should suffice.

    I point out the flaw in your logic and you just keep calling me a liar over and over.


    Im calling you a liar because you keep saying something with is just not true and you know it isnt true but you keep ressurecting it later on and re entering it into the discussion.
    I could resort to your level but I won't.


    It isn't a question of levels. You tried to redicule me with woody allen. You tried to redicule me about knowing or talking to Kuhn with an inane comment about Kuhn being dead for 16 years.

    All I did was show you something that was clearly false and show how you were making the false attribution to me. If you continue to knowingly do that you are lying.

    It is a question of truth. Calling you a liar only came about because I showed you something false and you went away but came back later and kept saying what you had been shown was false.


    I don't involve personal ad hominem in debate but if you are going to attack my personal credability I have to respond and show where you are wrong.

    I've already showed you do and you have no alternative explanation.

    1. Look up "burden of proof" I dont need to supply alternatives to your unsupported claims!
    2. You have made clasims which are untrue e.g. Kuhn reference in message 4
    3. I pointed out they are untrue
    4. You later came back with indirect comments like the above "I've already showed you"

    No reference to any messages ( I support my claims with references) just rehearsals of the untrue claims. They are lies.
    Your silence on that question and your insistence on focusing solely on the false claim that I said you were a relativist is telling.

    LOL! You cant admit the lie so you go back to the straw man.

    And I am NOT focusing solely on the "relativist" claim.
    There is the me misinterpreting Kuhn claim as well.
    there is the ISAW must not know anything about the history and philosophjy of science claim.

    I am only forensically going into the one you keep repeating because you deny you made it and they you re assert it again in a later message.
    I am showing you you were wrong. It does not matter if it was 100 claims or one. You don't seem to be able to accept it.
    I never accused you of it. I quoted that to show you that science is wrong does not mean relativism.


    A quote followed directly by the words
    You do certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.

    An near exact copy of the quote:
    relativism: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science.

    And followed by a video of Woody Allen talking to someone who does not know their subject.

    Forgive me if I think:
    I never accused you of it.

    Isn't true either.
    So you admit it now.

    I said it then! Saying science could be wroing and alternative kook interpretations like creationism could be right and that science has this notion as a cenmtral principle is endorsing them. Yes I believe that. I showed you how the Regensberg address by ratzinger on reason shows this up.
    And I say the ONLY way you could reach such a faulty conclusion is if you held to the notion that saying science is fallailble implies relativism. Which is my charge against you.

    And I say that is a fallacy!

    It isn't necessarily the only way and you have not proved that.
    But you could be right that
    P all non falliblist interpretations of science are relativist

    I would not think it is right though.


    Also I could reach a conclusion about what you believed without that having any bearing whatsoever on the statement that P: Fallibleness implies relativist

    Did you look up the fallacies based on the consequences of belief?
    Yes, of course I do. Again I can't disprove "kook nonsense" and as such I cannot say infallibly that it cannot be right.

    "cant be logically proven wrong" does not mean "is worth considering by science"
    You accept that?

    i.e. we can dissmiss it even if we cant disprove it.

    This is all aside form the fact that we CAN disprove it. And if we cant disprove it how is it central to science?


    Let me guess what you are going to say now based on the faulty logic you claim you never adhered to....

    Guess again. If we cant disprove it how is it central to science?
    THAT MUST MEAN I'M A RELATIVIST AND HOLD "KOOK NONSENSE" AS EQUAL TO SCIENCE.
    No not necessarily. You might not believe kook nonsense and you might be ignorant to some degree of the history and philosophy of science but you might make statements which endorse the spoonbenders and astrologers of this world and accord to them a place that reason and scientific studies dont.
    Ummm, I wonder why you would think that? Perhaps because you hold to the faulty idea I have claimed you do all along?

    You have certainly wrongly claimed I am a relativist. A non exhaustive list:
    message 4 was the first message you brought it up.

    Message 23
    You seem to be holding to this notion that all systems of arriving at belief and knowledge are equal. ...
    All of that is nonsense and the opposite of what Kuhn was actually saying.

    Message 67:
    your insistence that because I believe a scientific theory cannot be considered infallible (which you do as well apparently) and I believe that we must always hold that a scientific theory might be wrong even if this seems very unlikely (which you do as well apparently) I must consider science as equal to Creationism.

    i.e. you attribute "not believing in perfection = relativism" to me.

    message 67:
    walk me through the logic you are using in your head that gets from any scientific theory might be wrong to every non-scientific idea out there is of equal value to a scientific one and must be entertained equally?

    message 75:
    How do you get from A (what I said) to be B (what you think is the conclusion of what I said) particularly when now (strangely enough) you are saying that science being wrong does not mean non-science is equally valid.

    If you genuinely believed that back then as you claim to now how did you get from A to B?


    Message 75
    If you believe that the fact that science can be wrong means it means that non-scientific theories are elevated to the same level of it (which you continuously accuse me of implying by merely saying that science can be wrong) then you hold that if a system is not perfect that means all systems are equal.

    This is your faulty logic ISAW, not mine.


    Yes. After 6 pages you still didn't get it and were still holding to the faulty logic. In fact you still seem to be holding to it.

    More bald assertion without reference.


    I never claimed 2. That is your little straw man. I stand over 1.
    2. ISAW = a relativist

    five examples above
    And why would you assume saying it could be true is endorsing it?

    Fairies could really exist you know? Science says so !
    :) and pigs might fly.
    No the real issue here is the faulty logic you held entering this discussion, and the lengths you will go to back track. I never called you a relativist

    message 4 was the first message you brought it up.

    Message 23
    You seem to be holding to this notion that all systems of arriving at belief and knowledge are equal. ...
    All of that is nonsense and the opposite of what Kuhn was actually saying.

    Message 67:
    your insistence that because I believe a scientific theory cannot be considered infallible (which you do as well apparently) and I believe that we must always hold that a scientific theory might be wrong even if this seems very unlikely (which you do as well apparently) I must consider science as equal to Creationism.

    i.e. you attribute "not believing in perfection = relativism" to me.

    message 67:
    walk me through the logic you are using in your head that gets from any scientific theory might be wrong to every non-scientific idea out there is of equal value to a scientific one and must be entertained equally?

    message 75:
    How do you get from A (what I said) to be B (what you think is the conclusion of what I said) particularly when now (strangely enough) you are saying that science being wrong does not mean non-science is equally valid.

    If you genuinely believed that back then as you claim to now how did you get from A to B?


    Message 75
    If you believe that the fact that science can be wrong means it means that non-scientific theories are elevated to the same level of it (which you continuously accuse me of implying by merely saying that science can be wrong) then you hold that if a system is not perfect that means all systems are equal.

    This is your faulty logic ISAW, not mine.

    and at know point in this discussion did I ever believe you were. Why would I, being a relativist was what you were accusing me of.


    Nope that came LATER

    "relativist" was introduced by YOU in post 4.
    Don't you remember?



    Replace Obama with science can be wrong and communist with relativist. I never called you a relativist. That would make no sense since I was defending myself from calling me one.


    Wrong! You introiduced "relativist". How could you be defending yourself from calling you something you introduced and called me?

    I later said you endorsed relativism yes I admit that. I believe you play into their hands.
    Look at the people who post thanks to you messages and not mine. Look at any debates they have had and you will notice relativism in many of them.

    Again you must go through these discussions understanding 10% of what I'm saying

    I can only go by the words you posted.
    If at any point in the future you think I'm calling you a relativist I can tell you categorically I'm not and you have misunderstood me.

    Great. so you admit you believe I am not a relativist! That is progress. you admit that Your attribution of me as a relativist is in error.
    Please don't ressurect it later and claim I am one.

    Now on to Kuhn.

    What do you think I dont understand about Kuhn?

    I still maintain that until I explained it to you you didn't understand Kuhn. I would be interested in how you plan to prove you did.

    It would be better if you don't shift the burden of proof onto me and show how I didnt understand Kuhn. Please a no stage go back to assewtiong I am a relativist or support relativism.


  • Options
    #105
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    This is a general request to all involved. Please take some of the bile out of this debate. Love, not hate.

    Is "hard love" love? Surely love is built on justice and honesty?

    If I come across as hating those who I disagree with I would like to clarify that it is what they stand up for that the problem is for me. "there is no absolute right and wrong and there is nothing which is always wrong" flows directly from the idea that "there is nothing that is 100 per cent right"
    This motif appears throughout boards and indeed throughout postmodern sociological interpretations of science and reason.


  • Options
    #106
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    Already did show wher you equated them:

    You said science wasn't certain I asked you to clarify what you mean by that was science not certain but the best way or were kook things to be compared to science and seriously considered as an alternativ.
    LOL.

    Please quote me back where you asked me that, specifically the "seriously considered as an alternative" and quote what I said in reply.

    I can easily defend what I wrote. I can't defend what you make up :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #107
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    LOL.

    Please quote me back where you asked me that, specifically the "seriously considered as an alternative" and quote what I said in reply.

    I can easily defend what I wrote. I can't defend what you make up :rolleyes:

    Message 6 i ask:
    What ? That science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?
    No it isn't! One isn't comparing like with like when comparing kooks with rational people.
    your reply message 13
    Again yes
    Your exact words!

    Message 16:
    It isnt a fundamental principle of science that science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?
    One isn't comparing like with like when comparing kooks with rational people.
    As you yourself stated.A common misinterpretation ...: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science

    your reply to the above question in message 18
    yes it is

    Message 21 I ask

    Which is it. Other interpretations are valid or they are useless and should be dismissed by science?

    Message 28
    Creationism is dismissed by a "true" scientist because its claims cannot be tested or fail tests and thus you cannot build any support for the accuracy of the idea.

    Claims CAN be tested and falsified. You cant seriously say "man is as old as coal" an expect that to be accepted by science!

    Message 48
    You stated scientists do not entertain the possibility that their theories might be wrong and something else, such as Biblical Creationism, might be right instead.

    For a scientists to refuse to accept his theory might be wrong is for him to believe it is infallible.
    You are suggesting that science should consider the creationism is right and science is wrong?
    Should it?
    Should creationism be "seriously considered as an alternative" and science be considered as wrong? You don't seriously believe that so why do you support that this should be a principle of science that it must seriously accept that creationism or magic might be right?

    Or should science not just simply dismiss these things?

    If thaty is the case then the idea that "science might be wrong" is a very weak statement!

    It becomes "science might be wrong but other interpretations cant seriously be considered" or even "science is the worst interpretation we have with the exception of all the other non scientific interpretations"

    so there is nothing extraordinary or profound in saying "science might be wrong". And if you ever add "And other interpretations be right " what you actually mean by "might be right" is "they are not seriously worth considering by science"

    You don't say they are seriously worth considering so please stop giving them any credence at all with "but science believes they might be right as a central principle of science" One cant seriously consider them to science in any serious way.

    I accept you believe that but I wish you would say that.
    But Ill ask you anyway.
    do you believe science holds that one cant seriously consider alternatives to science in any serious way?

    If you believe that then the "science might be wrong" issue can be parked. It isnt such a big deal since science holds that one can't seriously consider alternatives to science in any serious way.

    Are you happy with that position?


  • Options
    #108
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    Message 6 i ask:

    your reply message 13

    Your exact words!

    And (again) where in that did you ask me if it was to be considered a serious alternative to science?
    ISAW wrote: »
    You are suggesting that science should consider the creationism is right and science is wrong?

    No, once again you make up my position.

    Do you agree that there is a difference between hold that something could be right and consider that it is, or is even likely that it is?
    ISAW wrote: »
    Should it?
    Should creationism be "seriously considered as an alternative"

    Again please quote me where I said Creationism should be "seriously considered as an alternative"
    ISAW wrote: »
    You don't seriously believe that

    I don't believe the false quotes you are attributing to me, but then since I never said them that is hardly surprising. :rolleyes:
    ISAW wrote: »
    If thaty is the case then the idea that "science might be wrong" is a very weak statement!

    How weak or ordinary or obvious statement it is to you is of little concern to me. Nor are the illogical leaps in assumption you made based on my statements.

    To me what matters is if it is true or not.


  • Options
    #109
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »

    I don't believe the false quotes you are attributing to me, but then since I never said them that is hardly surprising.
    That is dodging the issue. I gave you several examples and I asked you directly. You didn't answer.

    I am quite happy to didn't use the word "seriously" so Ill ask you again to clarify.


    Do you believe science holds that

    1.one can seriously consider alternatives to science in any way?

    2. creationism should be seriously considered as an alternative and science be considered as wrong?

    Does science hold 2 as a central principle?

    Do you believe 1 or 2

    Do you think science holds to 1 or 2?

    What then is the significance of saying science could be wrong and other alternatives right? or of saying "Scientific theories can be wrong, even the ones that have tons of evidence supporting them. It is possible (though looks unlikely) that current scientific models of say the age of the Earth are wrong and the idea put forward by Biblical creationism that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is correct." - your exact words.
    How weak or ordinary or obvious statement it is to you is of little concern to me.

    It is weak or ordinary to science and to reason and not just my subjective opinion!
    What is the significance of saying science could be wrong and other alternatives right? Either the other alternatives are serious alternatives with serious consideration or they are kook alternatives not worth considering at all.
    Which is it?
    Claiming you never used the word "serious" is not doubt correct but it isn't answering the question.
    Which is it?
    Nor are the illogical leaps in assumption you made based on my statements.
    WHICH "illogical leaps"? Care to enumerate them?

    Are you saying the idea of "alternatives is not to be seriously considered by science" is an assumption of mine that you do not hold and I am falsely attribution it to you?

    I am quite happy to say I am wrong about this assumption if you say alternatives ARE to be seriously considered. Do you say that?
    So are alternatives to be seriously considered? I assume you will say NO. Am I wrong?
    If so I wholly withdraw the attribution as a false attribution. But as you can see it opens up a separate line of attack.

    To me what matters is if it is true or not.

    That is a strange statement considering that whole point is built on the assumption that science can never say something is 100 per cent true.
    How does that reconcile with:
    Message 18
    Science doesn't claim to find certainty.
    science does not claim to find absolute truths and certainty.
    It is a great advantage of science that it never claims to possess certainty about anything.

    exact quotes.


  • Options
    #110
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    1.one can seriously consider alternatives to science in any way?

    That is quite a sweeping statement, but I assume you mean things like Creationism which cannot demonstrate the accuracy (or lack of) of their claims. Then the answer would be no.
    ISAW wrote: »
    2. creationism should be seriously considered as an alternative and science be considered as wrong?

    No, of course not.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Does science hold 2 as a central principle?

    No. Like I already explained there is a difference between realizing something can be wrong and thinking it is.
    ISAW wrote: »
    What then is the significance of saying science could be wrong and other alternatives right?

    The significance of pointing this out was that "preachy anti christian fundamentalist atheists" like myself don't hold to the "certainty of science". Science does not make claims of certainty.
    ISAW wrote: »
    WHICH "illogical leaps"? Care to enumerate them?

    Did you miss the other 20 times I explained this?
    ISAW wrote: »
    Are you saying the idea of "alternatives is not to be seriously considered by science" is an assumption of mine that you do not hold and I am falsely attribution it to you?

    I'm saying the idea that I meant alternatives are to be seriously considered by science is an assumption of yours that I do not hold and that you were falsely attributing to me based on your faulty logic.

    I say science could be wrong. I say Creationism could be right. You claim I'm saying Creationism should be considered as a serious alternative to science. That is your faulty assumption of what I was saying based on your poor logic.
    ISAW wrote: »
    That is a strange statement considering that whole point is built on the assumption that science can never say something is 100 per cent true.
    Since I'm not claiming I can prove it that is some what irrelevant.


  • Options
    #111
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    The significance of pointing this out was that "preachy anti christian fundamentalist atheists" like myself don't hold to the "certainty of science". Science does not make claims of certainty.

    Fine. But that is no big deal! Christians would agree with you that science does not make claims of certainty. So what?
    Now if you are going to say the point is not about science but about Christianity and you view Christianity as opposing science because science does not make claims and Christianity does then how is this evidence you are not a "preachy anti christian fundamentalist atheists"?

    I'm saying the idea that I meant alternatives are to be seriously considered by science is an assumption of yours that I do not hold and that you were falsely attributing to me based on your faulty logic.

    Oops1 you are back to relativism again! You are saying I called you a relativist!

    Do you hold "alternatives is not to be seriously considered by science"?
    Apparently above you do hold to that.

    It isnt just something I just made up it is something you believe. So where does that leave you comment that
    Please quote me back where you asked me that, specifically the "seriously considered as an alternative" and quote what I said in reply.

    I can easily defend what I wrote. I can't defend what you make up

    I didn't make it up did I? It IS what you actually believe. I ask do you seriously think alternatives can be accepted as an alternatives and you answer "no!"

    Glad we cleared that up and I am sorry if I thought you were contradicting yourself.
    I say science could be wrong. I say Creationism could be right. You claim I'm saying Creationism should be considered as a serious alternative to science. That is your faulty assumption of what I was saying based on your poor logic.


    Saying something could be right and science totally wrong IS lending credence to kook theory in my book. How is any logic faulty there?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    Now if you are going to say the point is not about science but about Christianity and you view Christianity as opposing science because science does not make claims and Christianity does then how is this evidence you are not a "preachy anti christian fundamentalist atheists"?

    I didn't say I wasn't a preachy anti-christian fundamentalist atheist, I said I don't hold to the certainty of science :p

    The realization within the philosophy of science that positions of absolute certainty cannot be supported is a strength of science. It stops people assuming some area or theory is fully known and there is nothing else to discover. It also stops the embarrassing instances of proclaiming something as infallible that later turns out to be wrong, which as a side is something religion has a poor record of.

    Science doesn't consider itself infallible. That is a very good thing, and a corner stone of modern science.

    What that means is you never rule something out because you feel that the area has already been show to be this way or that way and other ideas or theories cannot possible be correct because you have already found the absolute truth.

    It doesn't mean thought that this something else should be simply accepted as is. I never meant to imply that and if I did or that was the conclusion reached through what I said I can state categorically now that this not my position.

    The onus is still on the something else (be is multiverse, or Creationism, or string theory or what ever) do demonstrate its case.

    Creationism has utterly failed to do that, and until it can (and I seriously doubt it ever can) it is rightfully ignored by science as kook ideas.


  • Options
    #113
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    LOL.

    Please quote me back where you asked me that, specifically the "seriously considered as an alternative" and quote what I said in reply.

    Fair enough.
    I asked it and you dodged the answer.

    I wont bother forensically going through seven pages and showing where again and again it was directly put to you whether you seriously believed that science could be wrong and kook alternatives be right.
    You haven't said a simple NO. You have not answered No you do not believe science can be wrong and kook alternatives therefore right. In fact if anything you have alleged you think No but stated YES. The Mahon Tribunals had an easier time drawing answers from witnessess.


    You didn't give an answer it seems.
    I suggest me you are scared to admit clearly that you believe science should not seriously consider alternatives.

    Whenever pressed on it you claim not to have stated it anywhere! Then I ask you
    "is it your position science should not consider alternatives ?"
    and all you do is hedge and not answer.

    All I am showing is that oif it is your position science should not consider alternatives then where does that put any claim about "science might be wrong"

    Wrong but not wrong tht it is worth considering kookish alternatives OR
    Wrong toi the degree that it IS worth considering kookish alternatives?

    Or are you afraid of committing to believing in anything because you believe "science can always be wrong". ? :)


  • Options
    #114
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    Fair enough.
    I asked it and you dodged the answer.

    What was there to dodge? You withdrew the assertion that you originally asked me about considering them "serious alternatives"

    You - "I am quite happy to didn't use the word "seriously" so Ill ask you again to clarify"

    And then asked

    1.one can seriously consider alternatives to science in any way?
    2. creationism should be seriously considered as an alternative and science be considered as wrong?

    To which I replied no and no. What am I dodging exactly?
    ISAW wrote: »
    I wont bother forensically going through seven pages and showing where again and again it was directly put to you whether you seriously believed that science could be wrong and kook alternatives be right.

    I answered that question on page one (yes and yes) so there should be no need to forensically go through seven pages.

    If you like I can summarize for you

    Do I believe that science could be wrong?
    Yes

    Do I believe that alternative theories such as Creationism could be right?
    Yes

    Do I seriously considered alternative theories such as Creationism to be of equal to scientific theories?
    No

    Do I consider it likely that alternative theories such as Creationism are right?
    No.

    Be my question to try and find any quotes throughout this thread that contradict those statements.
    ISAW wrote: »
    You haven't said a simple NO. You have not answered No you do not believe science can be wrong and kook alternatives therefore right. In fact if anything you have alleged you think No but stated YES. The Mahon Tribunals had an easier time drawing answers from witnessess.

    The only problem here is your assumption of what I must mean based on what I say. I say science can be wrong you assume I hold non-scientific theories as equal to scientific ones. You ask me do I do this and I say no, at which point you get confused as if I'm contradicting myself. I'm not contradicting myself, I'm contradicting your assumption of what I must believe.
    ISAW wrote: »
    You didn't give an answer it seems.

    To which question? As far as I'm aware I've answered all the questions you have put to me about my position on science but if I have missed one please repeat it and I will be happy to answer it.
    ISAW wrote: »
    I suggest me you are scared to admit clearly that you believe science should not seriously consider alternatives.

    I believe science should considered all alternatives that can support themselves in a scientific manner. Creationism cannot do this, as such there is nothing for science to considered.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Whenever pressed on it you claim not to have stated it anywhere! Then I ask you
    "is it your position science should not consider alternatives ?"
    and all you do is hedge and not answer.

    You asked me that here

    You - 1.one can seriously consider alternatives to science in any way?
    and I said
    Me - That is quite a sweeping statement, but I assume you mean things like Creationism which cannot demonstrate the accuracy (or lack of) of their claims. Then the answer would be no.

    How is that not an answer?
    ISAW wrote: »
    All I am showing is that oif it is your position science should not consider alternatives then where does that put any claim about "science might be wrong"

    It puts it where it always was, a realization at the limitations of science and human knowledge.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Wrong but not wrong tht it is worth considering kookish alternatives OR
    Wrong toi the degree that it IS worth considering kookish alternatives?

    It is never worth considering kookish alternatives unless these alternatives can support themselves scientifically (which I'm assuming when you say they are kookish they can't), because with out this there is nothing to consider.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Or are you afraid of committing to believing in anything because you believe "science can always be wrong". ? :)

    I believe in lots of things. It would be foolish of me though to state that any of these beliefs are infallible. I'm not after all a theist ;)


  • Options
    #115
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    What was there to dodge? You withdrew the assertion that you originally asked me about considering them "serious alternatives"

    You - "I am quite happy to didn't use the word "seriously" so Ill ask you again to clarify"

    And then asked

    1.one can seriously consider alternatives to science in any way?
    2. creationism should be seriously considered as an alternative and science be considered as wrong?

    To which I replied no and no. What am I dodging exactly?
    Im sorry I didnt look at the latest replies. I accept you are rignt and i am wrong about this. You stated position is that alternatives to science should not be seriously considered by science.

    But what then is the point in saying science could be wrong and alternatives right and that this is a principle of science is not seriously considering then is also a principle?
    I answered that question on page one (yes and yes) so there should be no need to forensically go through seven pages.


    It didnt copme across that way to me. What I saw was repeated mentions of science could of course be wrong type statements which as I view it lends credencde to alternatives to science and reason.

    Do I believe that science could be wrong?
    Yes

    Do I believe that alternative theories such as Creationism could be right?
    Yes

    Do I seriously considered alternative theories such as Creationism to be of equal to scientific theories?
    No

    It is the second question that bugged me. If it could be considered right it depends on to what level you consider that. any way near equal or better than science is too serious. I would contend almost zero rather than not equal.

    I did post the Popes position on this as regards God not breaking the laws of logic or reason.
    Do I consider it likely that alternative theories such as Creationism are right?
    No.

    So - Possible but likely to a minuscule degree not worth considering seriously at all?
    try and find any quotes throughout this thread that contradict those statements.

    I accept your position but have problems with accepoting nonsense interpretations as "possible"
    The only problem here is your assumption of what I must mean based on what I say. I say science can be wrong you assume I hold non-scientific theories as equal to scientific ones.

    No no . Not equal but even in any way probable.
    You ask me do I do this and I say no, at which point you get confused as if I'm contraditing myself. I'm not contradicting myself, I'm contradicting your assumption of what I must believe.

    Fair enough. Other interpretations are not worth considering by science then.
    I believe science should considered all alternatives that can support themselves in a scientific manner. Creationism cannot do this, as such there is nothing for science to considered.

    and it is only possible to a degree not worth considering?

    It is never worth considering kookish alternatives unless these alternatives can support themselves scientifically (which I'm assuming when you say they are kookish they can't), because with out this there is nothing to consider.

    that is a fair statement. They could be possible but are never worth considering.
    I believe in lots of things. It would be foolish of me though to state that any of these beliefs are infallible. I'm not after all a theist ;)

    Some things can be considered infallible. That something is either true or not true for example.


  • Options
    #116
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    Im sorry I didnt look at the latest replies. I accept you are rignt and i am wrong about this. You stated position is that alternatives to science should not be seriously considered by science.

    I appreciate you saying that.
    ISAW wrote: »
    But what then is the point in saying science could be wrong and alternatives right and that this is a principle of science is not seriously considering then is also a principle?

    The point was explaining how I don't subscribe to the certainty of science. I don't have to subscribe to the certainty of science to still consider it far far better than non-scientific alternatives.
    ISAW wrote: »
    It is the second question that bugged me. If it could be considered right it depends on to what level you consider that.

    A collection of consistent predictions.

    Basically the model has to consistently predict the phenomena it is attempting to explain. "Creationism" is such a broad term, but it can be split into various claims about the natural world. For example one of them being that the Earth is 6,000 years old. For this to be considered accurate this hypothesis must consistently produce accurate predictions, and adapt if it doesn't
    ISAW wrote: »
    any way near equal or better than science is too serious. I would contend almost zero rather than not equal.

    Creationism does none of what I said above, so I would be happy with zero.
    ISAW wrote: »
    I did post the Popes position on this as regards God not breaking the laws of logic or reason.

    Probably a discussion for a different thread, but you definition of reason and mine are some what different. I think a lot of Christianity defies reason.
    ISAW wrote: »
    So - Possible but likely to a minuscule degree not worth considering seriously at all?
    Yes. Creationism is made up. The odds of it still being accurate are ridiculously small and would be one giant cosmic fluke.
    ISAW wrote: »
    I accept your position but have problems with accepoting nonsense interpretations as "possible"

    The alternative is that they are impossible, and that is not a position I can support. I can only support very very unlikely. It is important to remember that. Some things that at some point would have been considered very very unlikely end up being true, like quantum uncertainty.
    ISAW wrote: »
    and it is only possible to a degree not worth considering?

    Creationism hasn't given anything to consider. There is nothing to look at, it is just an idea plucked out of the air. It could be right, but given that this would contradict all modern science I find that ridiculously unlikely, and Creationists have given nothing to support their claims. As such it is ignored by science, and rightly so.


  • Options
    #117
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    You are gong to have to be a bit more specific than that ISAW, I'm pretty sure Boyle came up with more than one scientific theory

    I was specific. his theory about air! that is what it was a theory. Tentative thoughts. Measurement came LATER. Theory predated experiment. Are you saying that it was NOT science until the measurement confirmed it? A genetic fallacy.
    read the part in the book by Matthews I referenced.
    http://books.google.ie/books?id=qnwzRqh5jFMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Look at page 63 of this book from Matthews on Boyle's tentative comments on the "springiness" of the air. the language is exploitative and tentative not accurate.

    Science may be tentative and guesswork and creative inspiration.
    Are they invalid? No.
    Are they all purely guesses? No.
    Can their accuracy be tested? Yes (to various limits given that there is no observational evidence for them).

    After the theory! The theory might not propose a test although scientists quickly look into doing this. My point is it is STILL science before any test or measurement is done.


    Show me a single scientific theory that is still only a guess and has never had its accuracy tested yet is considered valid by scientists. Just one.
    Wormhole theory. Gauge theory , the Higges bozon, Alternate universe theory. These are all invalid are they? apparently you believe conformation must always precede hypothesis? Bizzare!

    It would seem you are also not aware of the genetic fallacy of confusing cause with origin.
    Assume Galileo was the first to say the Earth moved. Did the Earth just begin moving when he wrote that down?
    Once again I find myself at a loss as to what the heck you are referring to here.
    [/quote]

    the genetic fallacy. Because Galileo (assuming he was) was first to say it does not mean the world started moving then.


  • Options
    #118
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    1. I’m not focusing on the certainty of science. I’m indicating how some people might entertain the false dichotomy that science has a more certain view compared to say Christianity. Compared to kook ideas we have already accepted it has a more certain view and kook ideas are not to be entertained. Even if science admits it might be wrong it only does so to the degree that other interpretations like astrology, or paranormalism are effectively nonsense. Christianity isn’t a kook idea.
    Being right " almost all of the time" isn't to be compared to pseudo science magic creationism etc. One shouldn't endorse it by saying "it could be right". According to the standards of science saying astrology etc. could be right is disparaging science.
    But the quiz does expose a lot of the “science wars” and “postmodern science” debate.

    In short

    P :“relativism is nonsense not to be entertained by science”

    is something on which Kuhn, myself and Wicknight all agree.
    If Wicknight thinks I am putting words in his mouth he is welcome to say so I believe he takes this position based on his above comments.





    2. Other issues,
    I claimed that Popper progressed the idea of the verification principle as used by the Logical Positivists to the falsification principle. the idea being that science proposes a theory and a test which can in theory falsify the idea being proposed.

    The whole idea of falsifiability is to get around the idea of "proving a negative" into "disproving a positive claim"Sokal and Bricmont write, "When a theory successfully withstands an attempt at falsification, a scientist will, quite naturally, consider the theory to be partially confirmed and will accord it a greater likelihood or a higher subjective probability. ... But Popper will have none of this: throughout his life he was a stubborn opponent of any idea of 'confirmation' of a theory, or even of its 'probability'. ... [but] the history of science teaches us that scientific theories come to be accepted above all because of their successes." (Sokal and Bricmont 1997, 62f)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Sokal_and_Bricmont
    They further argue that falsifiability cannot distinguish between astrology and astronomy, as both make technical predictions that are sometimes incorrect.
    3. I wanted to introduce the idea of the Trinity of techne episteme and phronesis. My contention would be postmodern science over stresses phronesis. In doing so some anti religious atheists find themselves in the same camp as kooks and other kooks try to align themselves with rational Christians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phronesis http://books.google.com/books?id=yVBXPf50EV0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22making+social+science+matter%22&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=CNCTRgLt1z1rRBTbFsPrUf_w_M0#v=onepage&q&f=false
    One element of Wicknight’s commentary does lean on techne buy I turned to addressing the epistemological basis for it.


    Q: If something can’t be measured or does not exist in our universe it isn't part of science? i.e. what is a “placeholder” in message 45? If “All science is only about accuracy” (message 46) where does that leave such placeholders? In some “only true scotsman’s” world of “accurate measurement”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79146

    empiricism
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

    the think is I have a deal of sympathy for this point of view but the relativist philosophy ( particularly anti christian phronetic arguments) will disagree with it. I don’t expect them to attack it however given the amount of thanks they have for Wicknight’s posts. Wicknight now may find himself in the extraordinary position that I am backing up his beliefs against their attacks! :)

    Curiouser and curiouser!


  • Options
    #119
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    I was specific. his theory about air! that is what it was a theory. Tentative thoughts. Measurement came LATER. Theory predated experiment. Are you saying that it was NOT science until the measurement confirmed it?
    Yes, I don't think you can say you are "doing science" until you do that bit, it is the most important bit.

    I'm pretty sure Boyle himself would agree which is why he attempted to confirm his ideas (and the ideas of others) with experiment. If this wasn't necessary then why did he bother?
    ISAW wrote: »
    Science may be tentative and guesswork and creative inspiration.
    It can't only be these things. Again imagine if Boyle hadn't confirmed his results experimentally.
    ISAW wrote: »
    After the theory!
    After the hypothesis. A theory is a tested hypothesis.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
    ISAW wrote: »
    Wormhole theory. Gauge theory , the Higges bozon, Alternate universe theory. These are all invalid are they?

    They are hypothesises
    ISAW wrote: »
    apparently you believe conformation must always precede hypothesis? Bizzare!

    If you open a note book and buy a pen have you written an opera? No. Can you right an opera without taking the first steps? No.

    In isolate these things are not science. You can see this by the fact that no one stops at these points and says "I'm done". That doesn't mean that scientists don't do them at the start of forming something that is a scientific theory.

    Science is just a methodology. It is some what pointless to get into a tit for tat over when exactly in the stages of the methodology you are now "doing science". That is missing the wood for the trees in my opinion.
    ISAW wrote: »
    the genetic fallacy. Because Galileo (assuming he was) was first to say it does not mean the world started moving then.

    Science is a descriptive process. The output is an accurate description of the phenomena, not the phenomena itself. When did I ever give the impression that until science explains something the phenomena didn't exist?


  • Options
    #120
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    When did I ever give the impression that until science explains something the phenomena didn't exist?

    when yo say that confirming it is the most important part of science "I don't think you can say you are "doing science" until you do that bit, it is the most important bit."?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    when yo say that confirming it is the most important part of science "I don't think you can say you are "doing science" until you do that bit, it is the most important bit."?

    ok... not sure how you got from that to the idea that a phenomena doesn't exist until science has measured it. That was certainly not the impression I meant to give.

    Science is about knowledge and understanding, not magicking something into existence by measuring it. If I said the most important part of surveying was accurately measuring the distance and angle between two geographical features (just an example, I don't know if that is actually the most important bit) I wouldn't have thought that suggested that the geographical features don't exist until you measure them.

    Confirmation is the most important part of science because knowing how right or wrong (ie how accurate) your model is at modeling the phenomena is the most important part of science, and you figure that out through measurement.


Advertisement