On "analyzing" science that you don't understand

[NathanM.]

A local creationist has admitted ignorance in most areas of science, yet claims that because of training in how to analyze arguments, he nevertheless has the ability to rebut evolution claims.

So as not to give away the ending, I am not going to link to this claim, but I am wondering how many creationists will be able to spot the flaw in this 'analytical' reasoning the creationist professes in this example:

"The E-Coli experiments after 50,000 plus generations still remain E-Coli, Homo sapien Neanderthalis/Homo sapien Altai/and Homo sapien Sapiens are another great example (very fitting to Kimuru's Neutral Theory)..."

 

[AV1611VET]

A local creationist has admitted ignorance in most areas of science, yet claims that because of training in how to analyze arguments, he nevertheless has the ability to rebut evolution claims.

So as not to give away the ending, I am not going to link to this claim, but I am wondering how many creationists will be able to spot the flaw in this 'analytical' reasoning the creationist professes in this example:

"The E-Coli experiments after 50,000 plus generations still remain E-Coli, Homo sapien Neanderthalis/Homo sapien Altai/and Homo sapien Sapiens are another great example (very fitting to Kimuru's Neutral Theory)..."

It should be Homo sapiens sapiens? instead of Homo sapien sapiens?

 

[pitabread]

No takers eh?

 

[pshun2404]

A local creationist has admitted ignorance in most areas of science, yet claims that because of training in how to analyze arguments, he nevertheless has the ability to rebut evolution claims.

That's not true at all Nathan. I cannot admit ignorance in most areas of science since I was trained in science by scientists. What I admitted was not having the knowledge of anatomy that you possess.

Analyzing arguments follow on the heels of many studies in philosophy, logic, and a five year autodidactic study in propaganda and rhetoric and how these tools are used to "shape" opinions...the same principles apply to any subject matter or opinion that is insisted on being accepted (be it by theists or atheists).

 

[Larniavc]

autodidactic

Do you mean reading things you have decided to read, as opposed to an academic curriculum?

I ask because reading the sources that one selects for oneself is an appalling way of learning an accademic subject like critical analysis.

During my masters degree we had exams and coursework entirely predicated ones ability to critically analyse research and argument: it was really hard.

Ca you honestly say that reading what you choose to read is a legitimate substitute for a rigorous accademic education?

 

[pshun2404]

Do you mean reading things you have decided to read, as opposed to an academic curriculum?

I ask because reading the sources that one selects for oneself is an appalling way of learning an accademic subject like critical analysis.

During my masters degree we had exams and coursework entirely predicated ones ability to critically analyse research and argument: it was really hard.

Ca you honestly say that reading what you choose to read is a legitimate substitute for a rigorous accademic education?

In this case I am positive my consumption of mountains of material from a multitude of sources for and against these techniques and principles FAR FAR outweighs anything one can learn in a typical academic atmosphere.

I love education and even went back to school at fifty for a 5 course/1 semester spray just for fun and then again at 55 for 18 more credits in additinal and new lab techniques and updated biochem studies to enhance my vocational skill set, but one has nojhing to do with the other. Do you have any idea how many brilliant autodidacts (not being one myself) that there has been? I am sure many are far more astute than either you or I.

 

[pshun2404]

Here is one for you...do you realize that all language used in the subjunctive mood (even in scientific papers and studies) does not indicate fact only theoretical plausibility? Pick out a favorite or two from right now and take out all the subjunctive implied possibilities and see if the conclusion still applies.

Sometimes it does and other times it will not. Real objectivity is also very difficult since we ALL walk into it full of pre-supposed assumptions. Now eliminate those as well and read what is left for what it ACTUALLY is and usually we get a whole new perspective.

 

[tas8831]

I saw the flaw right away.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Here is one for you...do you realize that all language used in the subjunctive mood (even in scientific papers and studies) does not indicate fact only theoretical plausibility? Pick out a favorite or two from right now and take out all the subjunctive implied possibilities and see if the conclusion still applies.

So much claimed time spent in academia, and yet you don't seem to understand the significance of theories or even their purpose. Theories and models are used to aid in our understanding of factual observation. We observe that species change over time, that is the factual observation. The theories and models pertaining to that change are to help understand how and why, and to use this information for our benefit.

Since all theories are capable of being disproven (no matter how much evidence supports them and how little evidence is against them), they are never treated as absolute truths and are supported by evidence, not proof. Proof is for math. We literally can watch a virus infect a bacterium and all the viral offspring burst out of the cell, killing it, and yet Germ Theory of disease could still be disproven. It's just so unlikely at this point that treating it as accurate is pragmatic, and to just jump on the little possibility that the theory might be disproven is not only a waste of time, but harmful given that any alternative is magnitudes less likely to accurately reflect reality.

Sometimes it does and other times it will not. Real objectivity is also very difficult since we ALL walk into it full of pre-supposed assumptions. Now eliminate those as well and read what is left for what it ACTUALLY is and usually we get a whole new perspective.

I openly have a bias in favor of deities existing and there being an afterlife, and no objection to deity driven evolution or a deity based origin of life or the universe as a concept. Yet, after 4 years of being a member of this site, people continue to disappoint me with how little evidence they have for their claims of there being deities, etc.

Basically, since I actually hate being an atheist and have been trying to convert since I was 13, theistic arguments should work reasonably better on me than most atheists. However, even with that, theists fail to convince me. Would you honestly claim I am biased in favor of a position that gives me a nightly existential crisis to which I cry myself to sleep nearly every night?

 

[pshun2404]

"they are never treated as absolute truths and are supported by evidence, not proof"

Finally we agree!

 

[pshun2404]

"We observe that species change over time, that is the factual observation".

Absolutely! But we DO NOT factually observe the transmutation of species from one kind of organism (say amphibians) into another (like reptiles). We see different varieties of the same species develop. That is what speciation proves.

 

[pshun2404]

"Would you honestly claim I am biased in favor of a position that gives me a nightly existential crisis to which I cry myself to sleep nearly every night?"

I would not claim it, but I believe you do, because I have found that most atheists suffer from a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

 

[pshun2404]

"Yet, after 4 years of being a member of this site, people continue to disappoint me with how little evidence they have for their claims of there being deities"

I will explore this with you. Peyrhaps it might clarify a few things...but understand just as one cannot by the very limited scientific method prove there is no God neither can anyone by that method prove He/She/It/They exist....proof is only for math.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Here is one for you...do you realize that all language used in the subjunctive mood (even in scientific papers and studies) does not indicate fact only theoretical plausibility? Pick out a favorite or two from right now and take out all the subjunctive implied possibilities and see if the conclusion still applies.

Sometimes it does and other times it will not. Real objectivity is also very difficult since we ALL walk into it full of pre-supposed assumptions. Now eliminate those as well and read what is left for what it ACTUALLY is and usually we get a whole new perspective.

lol It's good to know that even scientists can use language correctly! Do you understand the difference between subjunctive and indicative moods? If so, you really shouldn't be surprised with that little nugget. Would you be surprised to find that "all language used in the present continuous tense does not indicate habitual activity only ongoing activity at the present time"?

 

[pshun2404]

lol It's good to know that even scientists can use language correctly! Do you understand the difference between subjunctive and indicative moods? If so, you really shouldn't be surprised with that little nugget. Would you be surprised to find that "all language used in the present continuous tense does not indicate habitual activity only ongoing activity at the present time"?

Yes of course, but sadly many readers (probably not yourself) tend to gloss over and not really apply the subjunctive in their thinking when they read or hear. It is almost as if the meaning of the mood is ignored...

We see this all the time when the media covers an ALLEGED person of interest in a crime or the plausible elements involved...usually by the time trial starts most people already ASSUME they are guilty and forget to really follow the actual evidence for what it IS as opposed to what they have been told this means. They just assume their position is true, and all the "We believe that" and the "may be"s and "could be"s are facts and not mere possibilities.

The same happens all the time when people read about new experiments and studies done by scientists. You cannot imagine how many times I have gone through articles given as proof for something that are filled with this theoretical (basically imaginative) spin and that goes for any group or individual trying to support a particular theoretical position.

 

[Skreeper]

bsolutely! But we DO NOT factually observe the transmutation of species from one kind of organism (say amphibians) into another (like reptiles).

And we never will observe such an event. Evolution does not work like Pokemon in case you forgot.

 

[pshun2404]

So much claimed time spent in academia, and yet you don't seem to understand the significance of theories or even their purpose. Theories and models are used to aid in our understanding of factual observation. We observe that species change over time, that is the factual observation. The theories and models pertaining to that change are to help understand how and why, and to use this information for our benefit.

Since all theories are capable of being disproven (no matter how much evidence supports them and how little evidence is against them), they are never treated as absolute truths and are supported by evidence, not proof. Proof is for math. We literally can watch a virus infect a bacterium and all the viral offspring burst out of the cell, killing it, and yet Germ Theory of disease could still be disproven. It's just so unlikely at this point that treating it as accurate is pragmatic, and to just jump on the little possibility that the theory might be disproven is not only a waste of time, but harmful given that any alternative is magnitudes less likely to accurately reflect reality.


I openly have a bias in favor of deities existing and there being an afterlife, and no objection to deity driven evolution or a deity based origin of life or the universe as a concept. Yet, after 4 years of being a member of this site, people continue to disappoint me with how little evidence they have for their claims of there being deities, etc.

Basically, since I actually hate being an atheist and have been trying to convert since I was 13, theistic arguments should work reasonably better on me than most atheists. However, even with that, theists fail to convince me. Would you honestly claim I am biased in favor of a position that gives me a nightly existential crisis to which I cry myself to sleep nearly every night?

Apparently if your assertions about yourself are true then you are an agnostic not an atheist (though atheists today like to jumble these together in our time, having been shown the total lack of rational support for their position). So the next step would be to get you to admit to yourself that the reality is more than merely materialistic.

DO you agree there may be other non-material aspects of reality (other simultaneous realms, other 'only experience-able' aspects, areas only discerned intuitively, the nature of the role one's limited ability to perceive plays, where others may not be so limited, and so on)?

For example, it appears that all peoples in general (not every individual), of varying genders, ages, educations, and social status, throughout all time have recognized, or experienced (some even visually or audibly) the aspect of reality they may refer to as the "spiritual" realm. Now granted each culture over time has developed their own interpretation of what realization they perceived and developed their own cult of ritual regarding this realization. However, that it is (sometimes essential) and always has been part of what separates humans from beasts (not discounting the animal nature of our bodies).

 

[pshun2404]

And we never will observe such an event. Evolution does not work like Pokemon in case you forgot.

You are right it does not.

So we have the following...nothing that can demonstrate this transmutation happens, and no way to observe that it ever has happened or is happening, and all testing done demonstrating speciation (as the alleged process by which it allegedly DID happen) only indicates this process is responsible for producing varieties of THE SAME organism. Hmmm?

Should I believe the story I was indoctrinated with and see all additional evidence through these rose colored glasses, OR just go with the actual evidence? Hmmm? But the evidence does not support the story? Hmmm? But if I do not swallow the story then I must be antiquated, superstitious, uneducated or some other such unfounded ad hominem. Hmmm? Let me see??????

Okay sorry...I will just go with the evidence and ignore the sci fi....

 

[sfs]

Absolutely! But we DO NOT factually observe the transmutation of species from one kind of organism (say amphibians) into another (like reptiles). We see different varieties of the same species develop. That is what speciation proves.

We also observe that the genetic differences between species are exactly what we would expect if they descend from a common ancestor, and we note that no explanation other than common ancestry has ever been offered by anyone for these observations.

 

[Speedwell]

You are right it does not.

So we have the following...nothing that can demonstrate this transmutation happens, and no way to observe that it ever has happened or is happening, and all testing done demonstrating speciation (as the alleged process by which it allegedly DID happen) only indicates this process is responsible for producing varieties of THE SAME organism. Hmmm?

Should I believe the story I was indoctrinated with and see all additional evidence through these rose colored glasses, OR just go with the actual evidence? Hmmm? But the evidence does not support the story? Hmmm? But if I do not swallow the story then I must be antiquated, superstitious, uneducated or some other such unfounded ad hominem. Hmmm? Let me see??????

Okay sorry...I will just go with the evidence and ignore the sci fi....

That's fine. You can believe whatever you like. But if you want to teach biblical creationism in the public schools, either bald-faced or covered by ID as a "wedge" for your theology, then you will have a different kind of discussion on your hands.