Comparitive delusions

quote:

---

That kind of sleuthing is not at all in question

---

How can you say that? It is completely in question according to you. You should not accept a single aspect of the methodology in my last post nor the conclusions of the two studies I posted that are based on the use of such methodology. YOU said the only FACTS are those that are witnessed. I presented a case where NONE of the events were witnessed. They were ALL inferred using scientific methodologies that use present techniques to make determinations of past events whether it be what produced a coprolite and what it ate or what I had for breakfast this morning based soley on forensic analysis of my feces. Thus, you are being completely inconsistent in your position. Just as you cannot support your assertion that the fossil record and geology are wild speculation, you cannot support your claim that you accept the scenario I portrayed in my post based on genetics and morphology. Interpretations of the fossil record are based on the same methodology as my sloth example. You are screwed either way because you are inconsistent. You basically cannot claim anything about science at all. That is my point. To be true to your beliefs you are confined to what the bible talks about and no more. Thus, cud chewing rabbits must exist even if they don't. The facts are wrong but your position would be consistent. Everything about science you must reject 100%. You cannot say that on Tuesday I will accept that genetic forensics is ok science but on Wednesday, everything it is based on is wild speculation. You either understand (which you don't) the science behind each position and accept it or reject, or you don't understand it and have no informed opinion whatsoever.Be consistent or admit you don't know what you are talking about in the science fora. Not knowing something is not a defect, but pretending to know when you don't while admitting you don't have the energy to find out in any case is crossing the border of a behavior most fundamentalists claim is a big no no.

quote:

---

You have chosen to embrace the prejudice mythologies of the dark ages and have come here for reasons that I haven't yet even been able to guess at.

---

I can stab at the motivations of Faith and people like her...fear and laziness. The fear component is that fundamentalists see how fast science has progressed and to some extent they embrace the products of science (popping pills using computers) even while hating the scientific process. They fear that there will be fewer people they can hold in thrall to their religion should people begin to appreciate and understand the scientific method. Hence, the constant assaults on the education system for example..ignorant people are easy to control.(Actually wonder why they don't embrace the Amish and abandon technology).That leads to the second motivation (or lack thereof) laziness. The leaders of these groups want power. The followers want to feel superior to everyone else without putting much effort into it. Thus, you have fundamentalist criticisms of evolution, cosmology etc. coming from individuals who have clearly NEVER put one iota of effort into actually learning about those fields and what they actually say. That is why for example you see the same stupid statements from AIG and other creationist websites cut and paste over and over again in these and other forums. It is certainly and easier proposition than actually learning any science.It is also easier for people like Faith to demonize her opponents as jackals or in another thread, comparing them to "Hitler" . Another aspect of wishing to feel superior to her opponents. A typical feature of fundamentalists.It actually makes me appreciate people like jar, Phat, and Percy all the more. They are believers but are not in thrall to such a narrow, hate inspired, vitriolic dogma yet they have faith. Scientific discovery seems to enhance rather than challenge their beliefs. It seems that perhaps the faith of the fundamentalists is especially weak so they compensate by being extra dogmatically rigid and aggressive...ultimately my take on comparative dilusions.

The nationalism of the Nazis is probably not a bad place to start. There are similarites of the flag waving, unquestioning loyalty, fear of not conforming that existed in Nazi Germany with the fundamentalist mindset. [Note, I am not calling fundamentalists Nazis, just that there are issues of exclusivitiy, unquestioning loyalty, and absolute intolerance of non-conformity that are similar...could use any dictatorship or top down hierarchy as a comparison]The laziness I am referring to is somewhat different than the type of laziness that we probably all exhibit in one area or another. I am referring to issues that these people supposedly feel passionately about..passionately opposed to...yet do not feel compelled to actually know anything about the issues. That I find relatively unique. Most people tend to be lazy about things they feel neutral to or are just plain not interested in. If you are supposedly interested in something, you tend to want to know all about it.This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 03-30-2006 03:22 AM

Hi jar,
That is sort of what I was referring to by mentioning the feeling of superiority. But you are right that it is a critical component because it allows the followers to feel included in the group and superior to everyone else without having to defend the notion or support it. Small wonder that they don't encourage learning or questioninng since that would tend to chip away at the facade.

Not leave EvC..just not make absolute statements regarding the nature of science or what evidence exists in support of scientific theories...as mark24 indicated, there are plenty of fora at EvC that do not have the same evidenciary requirements.