What I often see are hardened debaters on both sides who become more rigid in their perspectives the more they engage in conflict with each other.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What I often see are hardened debaters on both sides who become more rigid in their perspectives the more they engage in conflict with each other.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.
Are there really only two sides here? Is your "extreme agnosticism" (or whatever you called it) somehow immune to these polarizing effects?What I often see are hardened debaters on both sides who become more rigid in their perspectives the more they engage in conflict with each other.
Correct. I made an initial assertion without substantiation. The reason that I have not bothered to present substantiation is because we are not first agreed on what constitutes valid evidence in the context of argument.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.
Not science itself technically, but rather the scientist herself/himself. Of course my stance may be interpreted as offensive to many scientists who trust in their scientific skills. Although it is not my intent to offend, I may tend to be excessively blunt. That's the corporate manager in me.You've done little but claim that science simply wilts under your skeptical gaze.
The breakdown generally begins within the human psyche coupled with the human sensory organs. It is technically not a breakdown of science itself, but rather a breakdown of the scientist (or non-scientist for that matter).Where does the breakdown occur?
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.
For what are we supposed to be considering evidence?Correct. I made an initial assertion without substantiation. The reason that I have not bothered to present substantiation is because we are not first agreed on what constitutes valid evidence in the context of argument.
So you've managed to single-handedly distill some normative version of human psychology only then to conclude that scientists tend to have some systematic disconnect, again as judged by you?The breakdown generally begins within the human psyche coupled with the human sensory organs. It is technically not a breakdown of science itself, but rather a breakdown of the scientist (or non-scientist for that matter).
For example, I constantly seem to encounter scientists (not all of course) who appear to suffer from psychological aberration, which then makes me call into question their powers of observation. This category is in no way restricted to scientists however.
Agnostics tend moreso to get hit in the middle from both sides. Much like a moderate will get hit from both sides in a war between conservatives and liberals. Thus both polarizations and counter-polarizations may ensue.Are there really only two sides here? Is your "extreme agnosticism" (or whatever you called it) somehow immune to these polarizing effects?
And guess what? Scientists don't trust their own powers of observation. Thus we try to keep these sorts of things from influencing the outcome of our experiments.For example, I constantly seem to encounter scientists (not all of course) who appear to suffer from psychological aberration, which then makes me call into question their powers of observation.
Please clarify your context.For what are we supposed to be considering evidence?
Normative? How so?So you've managed to single-handedly distill some normative version of human psychology only then to conclude that scientists tend to have some systematic disconnect, again as judged by you?
Then I will leave your fear with you.I fear you won't be able to deduce much about the average human psyche, beyond a few trivialities, by placing an arbitrary division between scientists and everyone else.
Again, this may be logically and ideally so, but practically it doesn't always win out.And guess what? Scientists don't trust their own powers of observation. Thus we try to keep these sorts of things from influencing the outcome of our experiments.
The problem with left-middle-right metaphors is that they sometimes get in their own way.Agnostics tend moreso to get hit in the middle from both sides. Much like a moderate will get hit from both sides in a war between conservatives and liberals. Thus both polarizations and counter-polarizations may ensue.
It was your mention of "evidence" to which I was replying.Please clarify your context.
I think that's my line. You suggested an observable "psychological aberration" possessed by some scientists, which certainly implies a baseline against which you are comparing.Normative? How so?
Which is exactly why there is a peer review system. The peer review system in science serves as a check to keep scientists honest. This works by having different scientists review the work of others, by having independent groups of scientists repeat the work of others, and by having independent groups of scientists perform other, similar experiments to measure the same things in a different way. This way we can have some degree of confidence that our own personal foibles aren't impacting the results.Again, this may be logically and ideally so, but practically it doesn't always win out.
Fortunately, I've never seen that. I have never ever seen two equally-rigid contestants with equally credible counter claims. Every case I can think of involves one with an argument of substance against one with naught but resistance. This is especially true in the realm of this topic. On [thankfully] rare occasions, I have been on the wrong side of the issue on the table. But if the argument is logical and the supportive claims valid, I'll have to consider that, and inevitably re-consider my own position regardless what the more accurate claimant's conduct was.What I often see are hardened debaters on both sides who become more rigid in their perspectives the more they engage in conflict with each other.
Can you give some examples of where it "doesn't always win out."Again, this may be logically and ideally so, but practically it doesn't always win out.
Substance is the bane of anti-science posters.Can you give some examples of where it "doesn't always win out."
You seem to have an aptitude for making rather woolly comments, or answering questions with other questions, but I've not read much of any substance in your posts.
In the context of conflict perhaps.The problem with left-middle-right metaphors is that they sometimes get in their own way.
I hold to a stance of common descent as opposed to a stance of creationism.You portray yourself as being in a more defensible and/or reasonable position merely by arbitrarily positioning yourself within the metaphor. Common descent is not, however, an extreme position - in a philosophical sense - simply because it is opposed by special creation. Common descent is supported, for all intents and purposes, by all of the available evidence and special creation, for all intents and purposes, by none.
I fully agree. I just may differ regarding from what/whom we are descended.Thus, if we choose to hold the totality of evidence as a benchmark, common descent is by far the most reasonable, defensible position even though it - in a philosophical sense - lies at one endpoint of the metaphor.
I'm not aware that I've ventured to provide any evidence for my assertions. The exercise seems rather moot if we are not able to agree what constitutes valid evidence in the first place.It was your mention of "evidence" to which I was replying.
Okay. Is this somehow a problem?I think that's my line. You suggested an observable "psychological aberration" possessed by some scientists, which certainly implies a baseline against which you are comparing.
An ideal endeavor. But how well does it actually work?Which is exactly why there is a peer review system. The peer review system in science serves as a check to keep scientists honest. This works by having different scientists review the work of others, by having independent groups of scientists repeat the work of others, and by having independent groups of scientists perform other, similar experiments to measure the same things in a different way. This way we can have some degree of confidence that our own personal foibles aren't impacting the results.
This perception may partially be based upon what side of the table one may be debating from.Most evolutionists admit only a greater probability of accuracy as supported by all the available data - while the creationists claim "absolute truth" in lieu of any supportive reason at all. Ironically, the evolutionist's comments are usually each at least mostly correct while the creationist is often completely wrong on almost ever point.
My inner voice is telling me to stay away from there for the time being.I'm not aware that I've ventured to provide any evidence for my assertions. The exercise seems rather moot if we are not able to agree what constitutes valid evidence in the first place.
You either can identify a normative personality or you can't. Which is it?Okay. Is this somehow a problem?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?