Arrogance of Elitism

The key to this whole problem of "arrogancy" as far as I can see is that you and other creationists see different theories as equally valid points of view. You just see yours as differing from the majority.However the non-creationist contingent do not see the scientific position as just another POV. We see it as a highly tested, highly analyzed, highly verified accumulation of evidence, observation and logical analysis developed over many years to exacting standards with continual comparison to nature as the judge of its validity. A model not borne from any personal or philosophical point of view but an interweaving body of knowledge confirmed repeatedly by nature itself.The creationist POV approach seems to be to work out how you would like nature to be and to then seek evidence to support this claim.
The scientific approach is to test every single conclusion against nature and to build up a model that not only explains but accurately predicts the observable physical phenomenon. A model that has nothing to do with how we might want nature to behave for whatever philosophical reason.So when you say things like "it is arrogant of you to assert that your POV is superior merely because it is the majority POV" it misses the whole point of the scientific method. You are equating your night-time musings and bedroom brainwaves with decades of intense research by international collaborations involving some of the keenest minds on the planet.Established scientific theories are not just POVs in the sense that you mean.In science when two theories compete they need to both equally explain all the currently observable evidence. They are then pitted head to head by means of predicting different results regarding as yet unknown phenomenon. The theory that wins is the theory that makes the most accurate predictions and leads to new evidence being discovered.Creationist/IDist models do not follow these exacting methods. That is why they lead to no discoveries. That is why they are so unreliable as conclusions. That is why they are unscientific.Buz - Your kindergarten cosmology model does not explain even a fraction of the observable evidence (gravitational lensing, Casmir effect, clocks moving slower in stronger gravitational fields, the curved paths of photons in space, black holes, red shifted galaxies etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.................). Your "model" also makes no observable predictions.How can you honestly claim it as a competing theory by any even vaguely scientific measure?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Is this anything to do with the alternative guitar tuning, or the counterpoint-style time signatures? Great song, either way (though with K, not a C) (or perhaps you meant i instead of h... )

I just wish all online spell-checkers had a sense of humour Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No, I was just taking the piss. Even he understood the parody. I understand everything I have said about argumentum ad logicam, and how it relates to conflating arguments. This doesn't make me an "expert" as you stated, but that point is irrelevant, as I only have to understand what I am talking about, and I do;I shall now explain the problem, which you missed while jumping to many wild conclusions about me.Ad logicam is the error of taking a person's argument, and saying; "That's a popular refuted argument, therefore we reject your conclusion".Infact, the claimant's actual argument, is not from the axioms of the popular argument, and therefore it is irrelevant to conflate the conclusion. You chose to take offense, because in the first post I stated that not all atheists are like this. I did not mention a specific person.I can think of a few rational atheists who are not at all condescending, even at this site alone.Modulous
NosyNed
Minemoose
Parasomnium.I find the more informed they actually are, the less ad hominem content their posts contain.The thread is a parody Rhrain. That's all - just a bit of naughty mikey-fun. Use your considerable brain, and realize it was just a bit of fun. Even have a go at taking the piss at creos, AS I INVITED PEOPLE TO DO. You did go through them and do you know what you did? You agreed with everything I said and then SWITCHED. For example;"You are right about the appeal to authority, but you are wrong about X, Y and Z".Infact, mikey didn't argue X, Y and Z.I noticed this in each response.

Let me clarify. I ONLY CLAIMED the part you agreed with, I did not state that authority is meaningless. "A person without expertise cannot know that" is a silly claim, as I do know it.I shown that false premisses can have a true conclusion. If I knew that, why wouldn't I know the simple point you state. Anyone knows why a syllogism is sound,. Because it is valid and true. Infact, the burden of proof rests on the claimant. Logic 101. But I do. Stating what evidence is and how science works doesn't prove I don't. LOL Ofcourse, the observation of the higgs boson mass particle. Again you show the O.P. has weight.Again, you agree and say; Ofcourse, this is very basic, and is understood by most people at EvC.If science can never declare truth, why would it's accuracy affect my beliefs, that deal with truth? Biology? How so.Very VERY poor grasp of my posts. I said nothing that would affect biology, as I believe all facts are, "accurate".But thanks for agreeing with the ACTUAL points I made, atleast.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

So you disagree that pigs can still be animals even if I state that they are animals because they are filthy?My ONLY claim was that this is an insight from any logical notation 1. I don't think I am a genius in the least.
2. The conclusion therefore does not follow.i.e. It's a syllogism based on your ability to "know" what I think. Since you have no knowledge of what I think, you are incorrect.I am sure Rhrain will agree. If he doesn't, it's intellectual suicide he commits. But can he agree without going off on a tangeant about what I am apparently saying, according to Rhrain.If Rhrain is an expert, then I WORRY!

The Harry Potter example of an appeal to authority, was MEANT to be false.Don't you know that the whole point is to show you why an appeal to authority is fallacious?OH MY GOODNESS!! This is tragic!Obviously I wouldn't give an example of an expert being correct because what I was arguing was that an expert cannot be presumed to be correct on any related matter, such as "truth". Let me expound;There is a program on the BBC called "Mastermind" where contestants memorize every little thing about their chosen subject. Does this mean that they are correct when it comes to something they state about the subject, rather than an ignorant person? DUH - Obviously!
Does it mean that because they are an expert in this area, that when there's someone with an alternative opinion, to ANOTHER related subject/argument, then that other person is wrong? ofcourse not.The problem is that a theory is not a proven truth, but infact a scientific theory. Knowing the hypothetics of the ToE, as an expert - doesn't mean it happened historically. It means, by inference, you can soundly conclude that you are more able to know the ToE, and it's details.If we PRESUME negation through ignorance, then spontaneous generation experts, in their day, would have been correct, that maggots could appear on dead bodies, from "nothingness", or that steady state is true.Can't you see the obvious error? Assuming the expert is right has no relevance to truth. Rhrain, you said science is accurate, not "true". That's exactly my point here. How can you be so obtuse?

A better example is when people who read fiction books, have views about certain characters. If one person has read the chronicles, and another has read two pages, does it mean that the person with more knowledge is correct about his opinion of a character?No, because he could know the character, and simply dislike the character.Opinion is irrelevant to direct logic/science, because opinion, even expert opinion, is still opinion.In the past, it would have been foolish to disagree with the expert who vehemently claimed that spontaneous generation of maggots on dead bodies, must be true.Yet now we know it isn't true.That was my point Rhrain, nothing more, even if you state that my motives were something else, ad nauseum, anyone can see that I don't need anything else to support me, because the appeal is enough to show how favouring the expert's opinion is not sound.This powerful argument from logic is all I require, to dispose of your waffle in a sharp and painful way.I suggest you guys now refrain, or it will only serve to bring down more pain when I so clearly refute you yet again.

Is this yet another of your flyby "last messages"? Or do you intend to stick this one out? No. I just think that whilst it is logically true that it is possible to draw correct conclusions from false premises plus bad logic, this is a very unique, novel, bizzarre and evidently rather unreliable method of investigation.Let us remember after all that you were also claiming that ones knowledge of a subject was irrelevant to ones ability to form reliable conclusions relating to that subject.So if we combine your two points, namely:

That false premises plus bad logic can result in correct conclusions.

That ones knowledge of a subject is irrelevant to ones ability to draw conclsions relating to that subject.

​

Then in essence you seem to be advocating a method of investigation that entails applying poor logic to an alarming level of ignorance and hoping for the best!!!!!

​

As I have said previously this explains much about your attitude to knowledge. It also tells us all we need to know about the reliability of the conclusions that you repeatedly assert with such deluded certainty in the name of "logic".

​

Speaking of which......

​

This powerful argument from logic is all I require, to dispose of your waffle in a sharp and painful way.

Your pseudo-philosophical ramblings amount to little more than your own self justifying approach to a warped version of pure rationalism with the addition of some highly subjective and unwarranted assumptions on your part. Add to this your oft repeated "argument" of personal incredulity with regard to everything you find "illogical" and that just about sums up your entire position here, and in all the areas that I have witnessed you debate so far.

​

The self congratulatory posturing and incessant decalarations that every post will be your last in the topic are side issues that just add to the mild annoyance.

​

1. I don't think I am a genius in the least.
2. The conclusion therefore does not follow.

​

i.e. It's a syllogism based on your ability to "know" what I think. Since you have no knowledge of what I think, you are incorrect.

​

Actually I am a part time mind reader so your conclusions are, as usual, based on false premises.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi, Mike the Wiz.If somebody wishes to open a topic like this (Hill Billy did it around the time I first joined), that person should choose his or her words with extreme caution.For instance, Message 31: I can only assume you meant to refer to your own post as "an example of logic for readers," and not to the quotation from me that directly followed, because you apparently took exception to what I said.And, while you are trivially right, I hope you realize that your argument does nothing to discredit my argument, because what some hypothetical theist thinks about the Big Bang is really irrelevant to Buzsaw's grasp of the laws of physics. Also note that I made no attempt to generalize my statement to a broader target.So, next time you want to use me as an example for your adoring fans, please quote me in context.----- The forum's archives are available for everyone to read. Furthermore, I can take cues from the comments of other people and am sufficiently capable of reading to deduce that Buzsaw does not have a firm grasp of Big Bang, thermodynamics or general relativity. So, I think your assumption that I do not know as much about this topic as you do is completely without evidence, and is rather arrogant, in fact.Of course, I’m just a newcomer with a three-digit post count, so what do I know? Well, since you started with such a bulletproof argument from allegecd personal authority, I suppose my only recourse in this matter is to admit that you are superior to me and bow out of the discussion. After all, how could I possibly contend with someone who is so far above me?I will agree with you, once again, that you are right about bandwagon stowaways in scientific endeavors, but I have to ask you again what relevance you think this has to the topic at hand. Message 51 would have me believe that your comment about the bandwagon was not directed at anyone in particular. However, if the comment did not apply directly to me, or to someone else on this thread, what was your point in bringing it up? Does the fact that there are lots of stupid groupies and sycophants to science somehow discredit my personal scientific knowledge?If not, maybe you should spend more time trying to decide whether my argument has any validity, rather than just assume that I can be lumped with all the zero-knowledge theory surfers and that my comments can be dismissed because you happen to feel protective about Buzzmodynamics. Mikey, I am a Christian, and I once was a YEC. I remember reading a creationist textbook in highschool and thinking that their stories about the Flood making geological layers and about dinosaurs being too heavy to move were completely logical and equally valid as (actually, I thought they were more valid than) evolution and materialism.I’ve been there before. Most evolutions have, in fact.Recently, my father showed me a video by a Mormon researcher who had compiled tons of scientific literature from several fields (haplogroups/human genetics, archaeology, linguistics, ethnic studies, etc.) to support his theory that the ancient Hopewell civilization was actually the Nephite civilization from the Book of Mormon. The video was actually rather good, but his “theory” is still not really valid, because the evidence isn’t as conclusive as he thinks it is.But, being a Mormon, I have the same feelings toward that “Hopewell Nephites” theory that creationists/IDists have toward irreducible complexity, baraminology, YECism, Flood geology and/or genetic information theory. But, as much as I want archaeological and genetic proof of the veracity of the Book of Mormon, I can’t, in good conscience, argue for it (yet), because it would be intellectually dishonest to do so.The problem isn’t about simple disagreement over ideas, as Straggler pointed out in Message 61 and in his new topic. Science is not about people getting along with each other. Science has no tolerance for inexpertise, nor should it have any, not for Buzzmodynamics, nor for Hopewell Nephites. Please note that I am giving my own feelings and pet theories the same treatment that I give anyone else’s. And, most scientists that I have met do pretty much the same thing.So, please think before you make half-cocked, unresearched, stupid comments about people’s motivations and understanding of a certain situation, especially in a forum where you’re calling those very people arrogant.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

Ad logicam is the error of taking a person's argument, and saying; "That's a popular refuted argument, therefore we reject your conclusion".

---

Incorrect. "Ad logicam" is the error that because the logical process is fault, then the conclusion is necessarily false. For example:Because the sky is blue, 2 + 2 = 4.The conclusion, "2 + 2 = 4," is true but the logical justification for it is false. To claim that the conclusion is false because the justification for it is false is a logical error.You seem to have forgotten that you're dealing with a mathematician. If you're going to try and dazzle me with bullshit, it had better be good bullshit.

quote:

---

I did not mention a specific person.

---

Neither did I. Surely you're not saying that insults can only be directed at specific people and not at archetypes, stereotypes, or even (*gasp!*) strawmen, are you?

quote:

---

I find the more informed they actually are, the less ad hominem content their posts contain.

---

You said it. Have you considered applying this wisdom to your own posts?

quote:

---

Even have a go at taking the piss at creos

---

Why would I want to insult people?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hi, Mike. Just so you're aware: smilies don't make your taunts sound any less arrogant.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

So you agree that it is not necessarily true that a conclusion is false, if the premisses are false? (Which I have stated since almost the beginning fo the thread, so we can assume that that was my claim, yes, not yours.) No, I am saying that to commit ad logicam, you have to infer that a person's argument is not true because YOU conflate it with another argument. I am not incorrect. here is what it is;" Behe, is wrong, therefore there is no intelligent design, because you're basically arguing irreducible complexity ".If the claimant was infact not arguing from exactly the same premisses, his conclusion can be true, that there is design.It's no good saying I am incorrect and then re-phrasing what I said as the correct point. LOL! HERENo, it's logical notation, that a conclusion isn't false because the premisses are.This doesn't mean a conclusion is also certainly true.You are infact arguing the exact same thing now, and still saying I am incorrect. It is quite amusing for someone of your mathematical expertise to do this, but it is entirely transparent to anyone with half of a brain.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

No, because that would also be fallacious; Therefore your ad hominem statements do not follow. Erm, you took my statements and ran. Lame. Not as silly as your ad nauseum insults that carry no weight.My internet is poor, and also, I admitt that I give up debate at times because it is afterall, futile.

No problem, afterall, nothing I have said is unresearched, half-cocked or stupid, but is all based on direct experience.You had no reason to jump to any of that.What is really stupid, is the claims that creation scientists can't know evolution, or have studied, or that they are now "not true scientists" .(no true scotsman)Listen, I was evolutionist. There are Christians who were evolutionist and are now creationists, because they disagree with the presuppositions you need in order to say that the ToE si true.But, well - sorry if a little parody got on your tits so much.