Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking.
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 49 (354573)
10-05-2006 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Nighttrain
10-05-2006 3:43 AM


Re: The Role of Evidence ... in Law and in Science
But Grissom will always have some BUG he can pull out to validate his theory ...

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Nighttrain, posted 10-05-2006 3:43 AM Nighttrain has not replied

  
DorfMan
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 47 of 49 (354777)
10-06-2006 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by RAZD
10-05-2006 7:56 PM


quote:
yes it has been.
Do you know the way to San Jose?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 10-05-2006 7:56 PM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 48 of 49 (360056)
10-31-2006 7:24 AM


Why it's wrong to use daffynitions
Philip in Message 84 of The origin of new genes says:
If I write the books I can redefine "beneficial mutation"; why do you trust *authority* anyway?
I am copying my reply here where it is also applicable:
Let me give you an example of how this works: I redefine "jesus" to mean "devil"
Then I say that because of this definition, all christians are praying to the devil.
This of course does not make it so, so what is wrong here?
I am using one definition for "jesus" and every christian is using a different definition, so what I am really doing by saying that all christians are praying to the devil is equivocating between my definition and that used by christians.
Equivocation is the logical fallacy of using two different definitions of words in different parts of the logical structure.
What you are doing in making up your own definition of mutation is (1) creating a straw man (a false definition) and then using that to (2) equivocate between your (false) meaning and the (real) meaning used by biologists.
This means your argument is invalid, because you are using two different definitions.
IF you want to discuss what biologists are talking about THEN you will use the definitions of the terms they use.
Otherwise you are talking about something else and PRETENDING that it is about what the biologists are talking about.
Philips response was:
Ouch!
If you really want to narrow down this thread topic to mere *new* genes I concede on that point. (...the strawman being "beneficial mutation" as *unrelated in part* to 'new alleles') Otherwise, I'd be interested in your *valid* definition of 'beneficial mutation' (but then you'd be caught up in this strawman)
(I was supposing that this thread was equivocating *new genes* with *beneficial mutations* as post 1 (and the ToE) seemed to suggest to me ... another topic)
It doesn't seem to me that he got the point about changing definitions.
The point is simply that if a discussion is using different meanings for a term, that it is not discussion the same thing.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 49 of 49 (363439)
11-12-2006 5:04 PM


Archer Opterix makes a couple of points on another thread ...
From another thread:
Message 53
Aussie:
I know how ludicrous this sounds, but I really felt like I had a grip on science. I see the literalists debating here and sometimes I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. No matter how many well-prepared and precisely-delivered lists of evidence for evolution and an old Earth are presented, they just throw out a new turn of phrase, or another variant in their long list of rhetorical objections, and leave feeling as if they have adequately defended the faith.
You've surely noted the swagger creationists often display when they first arrive at EvC. They've imbibed the idea that 'God and I make a majority' so they burst into the saloon thinking they can whup any cowpoke in the place. Someone told them they're giants packing bazookas in a world of midgets squirting water pistols.
Then comes the collision with reality. Always fun to watch.
The confidence surely comes in part from the myth that science is 'really a religion.' This insistence (so bewildering to scientists) is crucial to fundamentalists. It creates the illusion of knowing.
They don't understand science at all. To them it's an unknown--a blank surface. But they understand how their religion works and how explanations are crafted in it. To be told science is like that gives them a sense of sure footing. They don't really know the terrain.
But blank surfaces are ideal for projecting.
In saying 'scientists are like us' they assume a mirror image of their own fundamentalism with left and right inverted. They debate not with real scientists, but with the mirror image.
What do they see when they look in the mirror? They tell you. It's a revealing picture.
No sooner do they decide 'science is a religion' than they start describing all the things they understand religion to be. They see people deciding all answers a priori. They see people conducting research that isn't open-minded and honest. They see arrogance and materialism. They see people ignoring, suppressing, or even forging evidence. They see a theocracy that refuses to allow dissent.
They are telling you how religions, in their experience, really do things. They disclose all the dirt about how fundamentalism works. Under normal curcumstances they would never ascribe these things to religious people. But let that religion go by another name and everything comes out. They point at the mirror and say 'You're a religion. We know what you're really doing!'

Give a man a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
- Oscar Wilde
and
Message 55
RAZD:
Or the only methodology they have for thinking about things is the methodology of their religion, so they think it is the only way things are done.
Good point. We've had opportunities here to watch fundamentalists try to put forward their own theories. And they certainly go about it as if science operated by the methods of religion.
They think forming a theory is about inventing explanations. And you can see why. In Sunday School they stitched prootexts into a story and called it a doctrine. So in science they expect to stitch bits of data into a story and call it a theory. As soon as all the bits are assembled into a plausible story, mission accomplished. They have science!
They expect their story to be as valid as yours because, like your theories, it is an explanation. They expect it to be more true than yours because, like their doctrines, it conforms to religious orthodoxy. And it is work, trying to explain a mountain of scientific data in a way most o fthe world does not. A coherent alternative story is not crafted in one afternoon.
But even if they did this, they will have done no science yet. Scientists know no explanation can be called a theory until it demonstrates predictive power. Can we run tests? Can we predict findings?
Over and over you see fundamentalists here creating 'theories' who never once think of this. It never occurs to them that any theory they invent should be called upon to predict anything.
Why not? I think you hit it, RAZD. It's not necessary in religion. In religion the doctrine of the Trinity works because it explains all the prooftexts and meets the demands of orthodoxy. No one asks what tests to run on the Trinity or how to falsify the Trinity or how to predict what the Trinity will do next. Predictive power is not expected of a religious idea. So they don't expect it of their 'science.'
Picking up this conversation here to keep the other from getting derailed:
Over and over you see fundamentalists here creating 'theories' who never once think of this. ... It's not necessary in religion. In religion the doctrine of the Trinity works because it explains all the prooftexts and meets the demands of orthodoxy.
There's another element I keep running into - the use and misuse of evidence.
First it seems evidence can be something said by just about anyone whether there is a factual basis for it or not - this can be just a layperson's unfamiliarity with science qualifications for evidence - (thus the argument that "Lucy" is some kind of composite is made without checking the facts):
Message 21
Lucy is hardly a worthy example. First of all, she's an extremely incomplete skeleton, secondly, they aren't sure she was in fact female, thirdly, the bones were not found in one location but over a mile stretch. That's quite an amazing feat how bones were dispersed like that. If you want to see an interesting video that brings Lucy into disrepute, start here.
And a video is presented as evidence instead of going to the actual fossil and the record of that fossil.
Second it seems that contradictory evidence is not a concern, they just need evidence FOR their view, and any old evidence will do.
Thus evidence for a young earth is touted, while evidence that invalidates a young earth is ignored or denied, brushed off.
Perhaps this has to do with the fundamentalist need to deal with contradictions and conflicts in their interpretations: it isn't anywhere near as prevalent in other christian interpretations.
There is the old phrase (I think it is in Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice) that "the devil can cite scripture for his purpose" -- meaning that any position you want to take you can find some section to support it (just don't worry about the ones that contra-indicate it).
Thanks,
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024