Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[milkyway]

It is because of this narrow-sighted belief of yours that we cannot have a constructive discussion. You immediately judge the other person incompetent without even listening to their argument itself, because such argument does not fit into your preconcieved ruleset on how to measure self and reality. On this basis, it becomes useless to present and/or substantiate assertions with you.

Self-scrutiny, or scrutinizing other realms where it's methods are ineffectual in the first place?

Can you give an example of these "other realms" where the scientific method is ineffectual?

 

[Tomk80]

Why is this dangerous to scientists? Why is there fear of non-scientific perspectives?

There is no fear of non-scientific perspectives. There are quite a lot of scientists who are, for example, theists. They will gladly admit that there position is not scientific. But when practicing science, where being able to discern between to opposing viewpoints is necessary, this must be based on logic and evidence.

I have no desire to lift any constraints from science. Rather, it is my preference that science lift it's constraints from non-scientific realms, because it lacks credible authority there in the first place. Science is unqualified to measure non-scientific realms.

But science doesn't place constraints on non-scientific realms. "Science" isn't a person that does something at some point in time. Science is a method used by scientists while doing science. Some scientists, and I am one of those, will use this method more for important questions in their daily life. But that is not a defining characteristic of scientists, it is a subgroup of scientists that do this.

You are basically setting up a false dichotomy here that does not exist in reality.

Not all evidence is scientifically testable.

I agree. But when practicing science, it must be. And I carry this position over in my daily life, where I will regard claims that cannot be tested with a lot more scrutiny. But my position is my own. It is not a defining characteristic of scientists.

 

[Tomk80]

My guess is that they fear it because then they cannot "win". Their view is that if one position is as good as any other, what is the point of debating it? That's what happens when scientists debate. It is all about what is testable.

Again the false dichotomy. Many scientists are theists, and know and fully admit that their stance is not scientific.

I'm going to put it up in bold letters:

Being a scientists does not mean that one is automatically an atheist

That's also why they end up in a frenzy against non-scientists, who are more used to the liberal arts-style debate, where hard numbers are not required, just fast wits and good debating style.

No, this is because those other people claim to have scientific evidence. 'Scientific' creationists claim to have evidence for their position which logically leads to the conclusion of creationism. This is demonstrably false.

After realizing that, you can do two things honestly. Either reject creationism because it has no evidence, or state that there is no scientific evidence for creationism but you believe it for other reasons. Some creationists take the latter course. The debate can then go into whether the scientific method is the best way of evaluating such a claim or not.

There is of course also the dishonest way out, such as taken by ministries such as answers in genesis. Namely, pretend your view is scientific while you know very well that it is not. If your claim is that the evidence is scientific, then the way to examine this is by using scientific methods.

 

[Tynan]

Being a scientists does not mean that one is automatically an atheist

But it certainly gives you a few clues as to whether the bronze age folklore you parents follow has any validity.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I fully agree.

Yet I see both creationists and evolutionists who insist that there evaluative methods are without weakness or error. They can't be wrong and are afraid of scrutiny.

This last summer, I saw that for the very first time. Before that one unique encounter I wouldn't have believed you. But that was just one case of any evolutionist ever doing that, and I've been in these crevo forums way too long. What I normally see, and what I have always consistently seen have been creationists claiming infallible knowledge of the unknown. To date, I've only seen a handful of exceptions to that rule, and they were all converts to the evolutionary mindset.

 

[TeddyKGB]

I had presented some assertions in post #272 which you had failed to address. I had also asked you to advance your perspectives. Instead, you merely respond with naysaying yourself.

As far as I can tell, all you did in 272 was talk about how thorough an agnostic you are without saying much in the way of how or why your uber-agnosticism is warranted.

Your spreading propaganda now, and merely getting accusatory without providing substantial basis for your assertions. At this point, you're just providing multiple quick quips, versus substantiating your assertions.

Am I? You've done little but claim that science simply wilts under your skeptical gaze. Where does the breakdown occur?

 

[VinceBlaze]

What I do have a problem is people believing in something with total and absolute certainty in the utter absence of any solid evidence.

I suggest that this problem originates with yourself.

Such beliefs are irrational by their very nature, and irrational beliefs promote irrational thinking.

So? And why is this a problem for you? Is this a control thing again?

I am affronted by such beliefs because I see those holding similar beliefs attacking science all the time.

You're both generalizing and projecting.

The worst offenders in the US today are the fundamentalist Christians, but they are not the only offender.

If you continue seeing yourself as a constant victim, you will never overcome your superstitions.

 

[VinceBlaze]

My guess is that they fear it because then they cannot "win".

It's too bad that they have to be in a conflict in the first place.

Their view is that if one position is as good as any other, what is the point of debating it? That's what happens when scientists debate. It is all about what is testable.

That's also why they end up in a frenzy against non-scientists, who are more used to the liberal arts-style debate, where hard numbers are not required, just fast wits and good debating style.

I fully agree.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Can you give an example of these "other realms" where the scientific method is ineffectual?

I'm referring to religious or metaphysical realms, for example. Or even areas of law or philosophy where scientific methods aren't always applicable.

 

[VinceBlaze]

But science doesn't place constraints on non-scientific realms. "Science" isn't a person that does something at some point in time.

Point taken. I suggest that some scientists (not including yourself) have misrepresented science in this very thread then, passing off their own personal perspectives as being the universal scientific perspective.

Science is a method used by scientists while doing science. Some scientists, and I am one of those, will use this method more for important questions in their daily life. But that is not a defining characteristic of scientists, it is a subgroup of scientists that do this.

Okay. Then I must learn to differentiate the subgroup versus the maingroup. Thank you for the differentiation.

 

[BelindaP]

I know that, because I am a scientist. I am also a Christian. My point, from personal experience being around other scientists, is that they don't generally like to engage in academic debates that aren't based solely on evidence.

Nothing sends most scientists off the deep end quicker than debating a strongly held opinion that is not based on cold, hard numbers. Many of the scientific believers that I know hold their beliefs strongly, but they won't debate them because they know their beliefs are based on opinion and personal experience and are, thus, undebatable from a scientific perspective.

 

[TeddyKGB]

I know that, because I am a scientist. I am also a Christian. My point, from personal experience being around other scientists, is that they don't generally like to engage in academic debates that aren't based solely on evidence.

Nothing sends most scientists off the deep end quicker than debating a strongly held opinion that is not based on cold, hard numbers. Many of the scientific believers that I know hold their beliefs strongly, but they won't debate them because they know their beliefs are based on opinion and personal experience and are, thus, undebatable from a scientific perspective.

To say that there are things all people refuse to debate is uncontroversial. How does this indict creation/evolution perspectives?

 

[Tomk80]

I know that, because I am a scientist. I am also a Christian. My point, from personal experience being around other scientists, is that they don't generally like to engage in academic debates that aren't based solely on evidence.

Which 'academic debates' are you referring to?

Nothing sends most scientists off the deep end quicker than debating a strongly held opinion that is not based on cold, hard numbers. Many of the scientific believers that I know hold their beliefs strongly, but they won't debate them because they know their beliefs are based on opinion and personal experience and are, thus, undebatable from a scientific perspective.

But now it seems that you are not referring to 'academic debate' but to debate about personal beliefs. I would agree that scientists are more likely to carry this perspective over to their daily lives, I do that too. What kind of settings are you talking about here, can you give an example?

 

[BelindaP]

It doesn't indict either side of the debate. I was just explaining why some scientists go a bit squirrley when they are trying to argue a point based on facts and the other side insists on arguing the point based on opinion and untestable "facts".

 

[BelindaP]

A similar example would be the abortion debate.

Two debators can argue the pros and cons of legalized abortion based on statistics alone. Either side can be proved based on the relative skills of the two debators. Scientists would tend to be very comfortable participating in such a debate.

The two debators can also argue the ethics of abortion, bringing in moralistic arguments, which are based more on opinion than on statistics. The scientists I know would tend to be considerably less comfortable participating in this kind of debate. I tend to think of this kind of debate as being the more academic variety.

 

[Tomk80]

A similar example would be the abortion debate.

Two debators can argue the pros and cons of legalized abortion based on statistics alone. Either side can be proved based on the relative skills of the two debators. Scientists would tend to be very comfortable participating in such a debate.

The two debators can also argue the ethics of abortion, bringing in moralistic arguments, which are based more on opinion than on statistics. The scientists I know would tend to be considerably less comfortable participating in this kind of debate. I tend to think of this kind of debate as being the more academic variety.

Why do you tend to think of it as the more academic variety? Seems to me the latter is more of a political or worldview debate, which I would consider anything but the more academic side.

 

[Chalnoth]

Why do you tend to think of it as the more academic variety? Seems to me the latter is more of a political or worldview debate, which I would consider anything but the more academic side.

Perhaps she meant this definition of academic:

3 b : having no practical or useful significance

From the definition of the adjective form of academic from http://www.webster.com

 

[BelindaP]

I wouldn't go that strong. But it is close. I attended a liberal arts university, and the joke was that you could take any position in a paper and get an 'A' if you were skillful enough at arguing the point.

 

[shernren]

I wouldn't go that strong. But it is close. I attended a liberal arts university, and the joke was that you could take any position in a paper and get an 'A' if you were skillful enough at arguing the point.

You mean you can't?

 

[TeddyKGB]

I wouldn't go that strong. But it is close. I attended a liberal arts university, and the joke was that you could take any position in a paper and get an 'A' if you were skillful enough at arguing the point.

[emphasis mine]

I see what you did right there.