Anyone notice that many people are scientifically illiterate

[partinobodycular]

That's why they are willing to lie. If they fall in line, they get funded. If they wot fall in line then they wont get funded. They have families too and want to feed them so they prolly think, so what if its lies. As long as me and my family has what they need who cares what they say, I just want my job without waves.

So personal integrity is meaningless, I'll keep that it mind the next time that someone goes on and on about the virtues of Christianity. After all, they're really just thinking about themselves. Right?

 

[Astrid]

It's NOT limited to creationists. Nor is it limited to people of one political party, nationality, or religious affiliation. I have met very few in my life who maintain a scientific approach to everything in their life. The vast majority do a lot of pretending that they use a scientific approach to everything. Me? I don't even pretend. I know I can't do it for more than a moment.

I limited my comment to creationists.
Of course disregard for integrity / logic etc is
common.
I doubt many scientists apply science to their poetry
or love lives.

HOWEVER, researchers of all sorts
have to understand that objectivity / intellectual
honesty is essential, a highest value.

Creationists, my topic here, are the opposite.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I limited my comment to creationists.
Of course disregard for integrity / logic etc is
common.
I doubt many scientists apply science to their poetry
or love lives.

HOWEVER, researchers of all sorts
have to understand that objectivity / intellectual
honesty is essential, a highest value.

Creationists, my topic here, are the opposite.

One can be honest but not scientific. Are you saying they are dishonest or not scientific?

 

[Astrid]

One can be honest but not scientific. Are you saying they are dishonest or not scientific?

Please read my post a bit more attentively

 

[chevyontheriver]

Please read my post a bit more attentively

I think you said creationists lack integrity and honesty. But if I'm wrong I'm sure you can explain it to me.

 

[Astrid]

I think you said creationists lack integrity and honesty. But if I'm wrong I'm sure you can explain it to me.

The thread is about scientific literacy.

I did not say " creationists lack intrgrity..."

Stil less that there's an integrity prob in all matters.

Its only a universal issue re science that doesnt fit their
chosen faith.

Again, it's a terrif help to look at what is
actually said.

But for your convenience I can restate the
portion you misquoted, as follows:

It is impossible to be a scientifically literate
creationist with intellectual integrity.

To illustrate, I quote a Dr. K Wise, PhD
paleontology.

"...even if all the evidence in the universe turns against yec, I will still be yec, as that is what the bible seems to
indicate."

It's typical yec behaviour.

Do you see the intellectual dishonesty?

 

[Divide]

"...even if all the evidence in the universe turns against yec, I will still be yec, as that is what the bible seems to
indicate."

It's typical yec behaviour.

Do you see the intellectual dishonesty?

No. Do you see the faith?

 

[Astrid]

No. Do you see the faith?

You really really don't see intellectual dishonesty?!

It would be well to google and consider what you find.

It seems me it would cripple anyone's intellect
if they don't even understand what honesty / dishonesty is.


As for faith, bitterly clinging to chosen beliefs that
are proven false is not faith at all, its stupidity.

It's false faith. It's ego, as in belief in self wisdom,
that what you choose to think gives more knowledge
than all the researchers on earth.

The only honesty Dr W shows is in admitting he
is dishonest. Like a bank, robber honestly saying he robs banks.

 

[Divide]

So personal integrity is meaningless, I'll keep that it mind the next time that someone goes on and on about the virtues of Christianity. After all, they're really just thinking about themselves. Right?

A lot of people will sell their integrity for whatever they need at the time. That wouldn't make integrity meaningless though, why would it?

Maybe integrity is meaningless to you or to them? Not for me. I didnt have to lie to get a job. I dont have to steal to get ahead. I would think a good man would speak of his own responsibilities and integrity and all that stuff before questioning a group of people about their integrity, but what do I know, right? You can't do that anyway because you cant judge individuals which messed you over (apparently) as a group.

My integrity is not up the street at the church. My integrity has my home address on it.
I'm sorry to hear that you lost your integrity. I hope you get it back.

 

[durangodawood]

A lot of people will sell their integrity for whatever they need at the time. That wouldn't make integrity meaningless though, why would it?

Maybe integrity is meaningless to you or to them? Not for me. I didnt have to lie to get a job. I dont have to steal to get ahead. I would think a good man would speak of his own responsibilities and integrity and all that stuff before questioning a group of people about their integrity, but what do I know, right? You can't do that anyway because you cant judge individuals which messed you over (apparently) as a group.

My integrity is not up the street at the church. My integrity has my home address on it.
I'm sorry to hear that you lost your integrity. I hope you get it back.

I was looking forward to seeing how youd address his point. But, unfortunately, you completely missed it.

 

[Astrid]

A lot of people will sell their integrity for whatever they need at the time. That wouldn't make integrity meaningless though, why would it?

Maybe integrity is meaningless to you or to them? Not for me. I didnt have to lie to get a job. I dont have to steal to get ahead. I would think a good man would speak of his own responsibilities and integrity and all that stuff before questioning a group of people about their integrity, but what do I know, right? You can't do that anyway because you cant judge individuals which messed you over (apparently) as a group.

My integrity is not up the street at the church. My integrity has my home address on it.
I'm sorry to hear that you lost your integrity. I hope you get it back.

And yet you cannot see the most blatant dishonesty
in Dr. Wise.

 

[Divide]

And yet you cannot see the most blatant dishonesty
in Dr. Wise.

WHo's doctor Wise?

 

[Divide]

I was looking forward to seeing how youd address his point. But, unfortunately, you completely missed it.

I didnt miss his point. It was very apparent, and that was my answer to it. ??

 

[Divide]

You really really don't see intellectual dishonesty?!

It would be well to google and consider what you find.

It seems me it would cripple anyone's intellect
if they don't even understand what honesty / dishonesty is.


As for faith, bitterly clinging to chosen beliefs that
are proven false is not faith at all, its stupidity.

It's false faith. It's ego, as in belief in self wisdom,
that what you choose to think gives more knowledge
than all the researchers on earth.

The only honesty Dr W shows is in admitting he
is dishonest. Like a bank, robber honestly saying he robs banks.

What in the world are you talking about?

My faith has not been proven false.

 

[Astrid]

WHo's doctor Wise?

Forgot your post # 94 did ya?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The thread is about scientific literacy.

I did not say " creationists lack intrgrity..."

Stil less that there's an integrity prob in all matters.

Its only a universal issue re science that doesnt fit their
chosen faith.

Again, it's a terrif help to look at what is
actually said.

But for your convenience I can restate the
portion you misquoted, as follows:

It is impossible to be a scientifically literate
creationist with intellectual integrity.

To illustrate, I quote a Dr. K Wise, PhD
paleontology.

"...even if all the evidence in the universe turns against yec, I will still be yec, as that is what the bible seems to
indicate."

It's typical yec behaviour.

Do you see the intellectual dishonesty?

It's not always intellectual dishonesty. Sometimes, it's a matter of living and thinking in proxy to those who know and also, thereby, trusting those who know.

If, as many times is the case, a typical layperson doesn't have the time, means, education or money to be in proxy to those who know, then I think the late Basil Mitchell's "Layman's Predicament" argument gains traction and, at least partly, explains and justifies why some Creationists see the world as they do. It's not always dishonesty at work, perhaps not any more than it may be for the average Chinese citizen to believe that Communism is somehow "true."

Reference

Mitchell, Basil. "How to play theological ping-pong: and other essays on faith and reason." (1990).

 

[Astrid]

What in the world are you talking about?

My faith has not been proven false.

Did I say it was? Tell me your faith, I dunno
what you believe.
I believe you are not paying attention to
even what you yourself say.

It's not always intellectual dishonesty. Sometimes, it's a matter of living and thinking in proxy to those who know and also, thereby, trusting those who know.

If, as many times is the case, a typical layperson doesn't have the time, means, education or money to be in proxy to those who know, then I think the late Basil Mitchell's "Layman's Predicament" argument gains traction and, at least partly, explains and justifies why some Creationists see the world as they do. It's not always dishonesty at work, perhaps not any more than it may be for the average Chinese citizen to believe that Communism is somehow "true."

Reference

Mitchell, Basil. "How to play theological ping-pong: and other essays on faith and reason." (1990).

Obvious.

But you still don't understand what I SAID.
I said that nobody can be scientifically literate,
and be a creationist without being intellectually
dishonest.

Your "layman" is ignorant of the relevant facts re
science and " creationism".

As perhaps you are.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Obvious.

But you still don't understand what I SAID.
I said that nobody can be scientifically literate,
and be a creationist without being intellectually
dishonest.

Your "layman" is ignorant of the relevant facts re
science and " creationism".

As perhaps you are.

Oh, I'm sure I'm ignorant of a lot of things that two degrees and a legion of PhD level books and articles and other sources don't cover.

So, you're probably very right on that point, Ms. Estrid!

 

[Divide]

No. Do you see the faith?

Forgot your post # 94 did ya?

That's my post #94. I'm still not understanding you.

Obvious.

But you still don't understand what I SAID.
I said that nobody can be scientifically literate,
and be a creationist without being intellectually
dishonest.

Your "layman" is ignorant of the relevant facts re
science and " creationism".

As perhaps you are.

I can agree that no one can be scientifically literate completely because man doesnt know everything. We have lots of theories. So it sounds like what you are trying to say is, yec is dishonest or blind to scientific literacy?

So you are speaking from a totally secular view, correct? I'm fairly scientiffically literate and a yec also and I don't have to be dishonest to reconcile these many things within myself. When you look at something from only a secular view then it would make sense for you to see what you do. But to look at it from a spiritual viewpoint also only edifies and enhances understanding. I dont have to be dishonest about science because I believe in a young earth. There is a perfectly good explanation for that and it makes sense.

 

[Bradskii]

That's my post #94. I'm still not understanding you.



I can agree that no one can be scientifically literate completely because man doesnt know everything. We have lots of theories. So it sounds like what you are trying to say is, yec is dishonest or blind to scientific literacy?

So you are speaking from a totally secular view, correct? I'm fairly scientiffically literate and a yec also and I don't have to be dishonest to reconcile these many things within myself. When you look at something from only a secular view then it would make sense for you to see what you do. But to look at it from a spiritual viewpoint also only edifies and enhances understanding. I dont have to be dishonest about science because I believe in a young earth. There is a perfectly good explanation for that and it makes sense.

That's a logical argument. If you are a YEC then you discount any evidence that contradicts that view (I can't understand how it's possible to do that, but that isn't a concern re this post).

'Dr. Wise earned his BA in geology from the University of Chicago, and his MA and PhD degrees in paleontology from Harvard University.' Kurt Wise, Paleontologist

Now you don't get a BA in geology or degrees in paleontology by writing papers based on the proposal that the planet is 6,000 years old. It would be like someone who is a flat earther getting a degree in orbital mechanics. Or a creationist getting a PhD in evolutionary physiology. It's literally not possible.

He wrote papers and presented work and passed exams by giving answers that he believed to be completely wrong. In other words, he lied. In other words he was intellectually dishonest.