Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   rules for devil's advocate thread
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 1 of 7 (235713)
08-22-2005 8:16 PM


Percy, what I envision and it was my post is we limit the topic to criticisms of evolution and some rebuttals which may demand alternative answers, but are more focussed on defending evolution, not make the thread about the different forms of creationism and ID except as they arise in the thread.
So the evo posts a critique of ToE, and I and/or some non-evos respond with the arguments for ToE. That way the topic is about ToE and various criticims of it.
I am not that interested in attacking YECism, except in this context, and partly because I don't know enough about it.
The thread is meant to be about how well non-evos understand ToE, and how well evos understand the criticisms of ToE, not necessarily all the various models out there in toto.
This message has been edited by randman, 08-22-2005 08:18 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 08-23-2005 9:48 AM randman has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 7 (235904)
08-23-2005 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
08-22-2005 8:16 PM


One of the moderator responsibilities is to maintain orderly on-topic discussions in the threads. If you can compose some straightforward rules of engagement that will prevent anarchy then you may be able to have what you want. If no one can figure out what you want except as you slowly reveal it in post-OP meta-discussions then moderators will step in to maintain order.
Why don't you try to think through exactly what it is you want, and then figure out how to describe it clearly. We're not going to have a thread where the rules are, "Whatever Randman said in his last post."
I might add that what you appear to want is precisely what Creationists are most often criticized for. You want evolutionists to pretend they're Creationists and to construct criticisms of the TOE. In other words, you want evolutionists to make precisely the same mistake Creationists make, which is to criticize evolution instead of developing theories of their own.
Creationists challenge evolution for one of the worst possible reasons. It isn't that they want to solve the puzzle of life's amazing diversity, but that they don't like evolution because it contradicts their religious beliefs. And so instead of doing research to figure out how life's diversity actually happened, they instead put all their effort into criticizing the TOE. This leaves them spectacularly mute, at least in any scientific sense, when someone asks, "So what do you propose as an alternative?" And it makes it very clear that they're not doing science.
I'll add a post to your thread as Percy and see if we can get things going on the track you want.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 08-22-2005 8:16 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 08-23-2005 9:51 AM Admin has replied
 Message 4 by berberry, posted 08-23-2005 9:56 AM Admin has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 3 of 7 (235905)
08-23-2005 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
08-23-2005 9:48 AM


I don't see IDers and creationists doing that at all
I don't see that at all, but the topic needs to remain somewhat narrow for sake of brevity, and the claim by evos is that critics of ToE do so based on ignorance.
Imo, it's the other way around.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 08-23-2005 9:48 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Admin, posted 08-23-2005 10:16 AM randman has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 7 (235909)
08-23-2005 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
08-23-2005 9:48 AM


I took a debating class in high school and this was something we did frequently. I loved it. If I remember correctly (and it's been well over two decades), the only rule was that you must argue the position as if it were your own. You could be called out if enough people thought you weren't giving it your best.

"I think younger workers first of all, younger workers have been promised benefits the government promises that have been promised, benefits that we can't keep. That's just the way it is." George W. Bush, May 4, 2005

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 08-23-2005 9:48 AM Admin has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 5 of 7 (235920)
08-23-2005 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by randman
08-23-2005 9:51 AM


Re: I don't see IDers and creationists doing that at all
randman writes:
I don't see that at all, but the topic needs to remain somewhat narrow for sake of brevity, and the claim by evos is that critics of ToE do so based on ignorance.
Once again you don't quote what portion of my post you're replying to, but if you mean you don't agree with the criticism that Creationists focus all their attention on criticizing evolution, then why did you ask evolutionists to do precisely that?
And if you agree that it is important to develop alternative theories when challenging existing theories, then why did you rail on about not caring about what Kuhn said about this a while back?
Anyway, I again encourage you to quote what you're replying to. I think you would also do well to focus more on quality than quantity. Threads in which you participate are notable for the number of times people have to correct your misimpressions and misinterpretations of what they've said. I think you should slow down and take your time.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 08-23-2005 9:51 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 08-23-2005 10:21 AM Admin has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 6 of 7 (235926)
08-23-2005 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Admin
08-23-2005 10:16 AM


Re: I don't see IDers and creationists doing that at all
And if you agree that it is important to develop alternative theories when challenging existing theories, then why did you rail on about not caring about what Kuhn said about this a while back?
You are missing the point. I don't think it's necessary to develop an alternative theory to recognize the weaknesses and error of an existing one.
In terms of creationist and ID scientists, you are falsely maligning them since they do a great deal of work developing models and doing research.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Admin, posted 08-23-2005 10:16 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Admin, posted 08-23-2005 10:51 AM randman has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 7 of 7 (235949)
08-23-2005 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by randman
08-23-2005 10:21 AM


Re: I don't see IDers and creationists doing that at all
randman writes:
In terms of creationist and ID scientists, you are falsely maligning them since they do a great deal of work developing models and doing research.
Then why do you want to focus the attention of your thread on what's wrong with evolution instead of on the new and better models being proposed by Creationists?
You see, the problem with Creationism isn't just that they criticize evolution, but that they fail to propose a better model, or more often, they fail to propose any competing model at all. However good or bad you think the TOE is as a model for understanding life's diversity, in order to replace it you have to come up with a better model. When a Creationist says, for example, that he doesn't accept evolution's explanation for the eye, he needs to propose a better explanation. If we were to allow Creationism representation in science classrooms when they have no effective model, it would mean that after the teacher presented evolution's hypothesis for the eye, Creationism would have no more to say than, "We don't know, but evolution didn't do it."
If Creationists are actually doing all this research and model development then they need to show this by using these new principles to develop new medicines and crops and breeds and so forth, and they need to bring these discoveries to the halls of science where they can be examined and criticized and developed, just like all other science.
A real science moves forward. That's how you know that ESP and alien visitations are very likely not real phenomena. Creationists were leveling the same criticisms at the scientific establishment 20 years ago for rejecting Creation Science as they are today for rejecting ID. But now after all the ugly aspersions tossed at evolutionists over the years Creation Science is being abandoned as the theory being marketed. Now it's ID, and all the same ugly names are being tossed about. If Creationists could just toss science instead of names, if they could play science instead of politics, they'd fair much better.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 08-23-2005 10:21 AM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024