Arrogance of Elitism

That's your angle on it. We have our reasons for why we think, a different thing.Our reasons are presuppositions that we do not agree with.For example, "the keenest minds on the planet", doesn't negate the keenest mind ever - omniscient God.We are aware that in this present climate, while we respect the different theories, they are essentially only theories, and we know that in scientific history, theories have came and gone.Our beliefs don't actually contradict the facts. I believe natural selection, flagelum changes, beneficial mutation. What we don't agree on, is that your naturalist philosophy is absolute.Why is it so problematic that we don't agree if science itself doesn't promote absolutes?Theories are largely just induction build-up. With the same facts, you can have a Creation-conclusion, but oh no - God forbid that God is able to have precious man be wrong in all his information-accumulation.Is it his fault you accumulated it, and then illogically stated that therefore X,Y and Z MUST follow.That's what doesn't add up - that the scientific method doesn't insist we agree or else, and Darwin doesn't insist we agree or else. ONLY YOU TYPE OF GUYS insist it, so I do not trust your motive.There are so many assumptions.1. Uniformitarianism.
2. Our planet being old, because the universe seemingly is. (X is Z therefore X).
3. The present being the key to the past. (Not logically sound, initiated by Lyell's philosophy).
4. The abiogenesis MEGA-Assumption, despite it not ever having shown any evidence apart from the circular argument that states that because we are here it must have happened. (I could state the same about the book of Genesis).
5. Assuming size and shape of fossils/remains, and then putting them in the assumed pattern through cladistical fantasy.
6. Assuming designs in the fossils prove macro-design when it doesn't.I could go on and on and on. I am not logically obliged to presuppose these things when there are example AGAINST such presuppositions, in teh FACTS.Such as fast fast fossilization and coalification. (ten years). The moon, reversing into the earth if the "present is the key to the past", not credible!The fact that no new added information happens in DNA in the form of a mutation, within modern animals, producing, are prtially producing the beggining of a new system/design. (Always less or more limbs, but never new limbs, and always disease and deformity).These are SOME, yes only SOME of teh reasons I do not go for naturalism, which is NOT SCIENCE, but is a philosophical position of assuming there are natural explanations without proving them, such as abiogenesis.

Geez Mike - fine, you have gone more creationist in your "thinking", but did you have to leave your brain at home? You've gone bat-shit creationist-crazy here. Information? Limbs? Uniformitarianism? Who would have thought you would end up as another AIG clone? There is no rule that says a creationist cannot use his brain. You're going to be supporting Kent Hovind next... very, very sad and a complete waste

Hi, Mikey. Yes, in fact, I did. You quoted me out of context to use me as an example of your superior logic, assumed that I don't know things because I'm a newcomer, attacked my argument on the basis that there are a lot of people who just jump on the evolution bandwagon, and concluded that I must be ignorant because I'm attacking an idea in a discussion forum.Nope, nothing to get upset about there. Mike, no one has made this claim within a hundred yards of this thread. What are you going off about? So, people should just cheerfully take all of your insults, taunts and patronizations if you, in hindsight, call it a "parody"?Maybe you should read the posts again (Message 31 and Message 33) just to make sure you know to what I'm referring, because I don't see anything in them that could accurately be called "parody"?

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

I don't place faith in theories, but I accept theories as the best explanation of the evidence until a better theory is found. That is what science does. All theories can be falsified if more or better information or evidence is discovered and this has happened numerous timesIe:Ptolemic solar systemPhlogistonOriginal periodic law

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

It is you that made ridiculous statements. Statements which you now seem unwilling to defend.So do you deny asserting that knoweldge and information are no basis for drawing conclusions? I can quote you if you like? So what exactly is your position regarding knowledge, the reliability of conclusions drawn based on knowledge and the methods that lead to increased knowledge? I can only atack the person based on what the person has said. Your use of the term "ad hominem" is unjustified in this context. You have demonstrated your ignorance, your debating methods and your arrogance. I attack only that which you have revealed.THE TOPIC
You started this thread to criticise those who claim superior knowledge and expertise of subjects recently debated (e.g. the scientific consensus vs the Buzsaw universe) and within the wider context of the EvC debate. You have yet to justify why this criticism is valid in the face of overwhelming arguments as to why not all points of view are equally valid and as to why some positions are indeed superior to others in objective terms. I suggest that this is because you are fundamentally unable to backup this false claim with any meaningful argumentYou hide behind pseudo-logic, you fail to backup your own assertions, you evade direct questions, you are unable to present a coherent argument and you are looking increasingly foolish despite your ongoing assertions that you are the master of all you assert.Are all points of view equal and if not on what basis is one point of view superior to another?For one who considers himself to be so educated and informed you should be able to backup your initial assertions and implication that a creationist POV is as equally valid as an established scientific theory.That is where this topic started and, despite your ongoing attempts to wriggle out of the hole you have dug for yourself, that is the topic you need to address.Are you willing to do so? Or will your keep missusing logical terminology to make false points?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well one set of theories leads to predictions, verification and discovery.
The other "theory" leads to no predictions and has yet to discover a single god-damn thing ever in it's entire history.
Based on this and this alone which would you logically infer was the superior and most objective position?
I dare you to start a thread on any one of these to defend it in detail. I double triple mega dare you. You know full well that held up to scrutiny each and everyone one of these will be torn to shreds by evidence based investigation. Pick your strongest one from the above and try it. Seriously go on. It will be be fun to watch. Your whole position relies on presupposition. To paraphrase: "The existence of MY God is logical. You need to disprove it. But all other Gods are false until proven true"
"All points of view are equal. Logic and perception are what is required for truth. I refuse to let anything as trivial as several centuries worth of physical evidence get in the way of that which I believe. I cannot imagine that any of these alternatives could possibly be true. Therefore God didit. This is "logical". How many of the other things that have been atributed to supernatural entities at one time or another now have natural explanations? Some? Most? Nearly all?Your God of the gaps is a shrinking insignificant God. To propose such a God suggests that you have too much certainty and too little faith.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Do you think that science and philosophy are unconnected?Naturalism doesn't assume there are natural explanations without proving them. Naturalism is a metaphysical position. That is: it is a position about the nature of reality. Metaphysical positions are obviously not 'science' since science is about physical things not underlying metaphysical reality.What strikes me as odd though, is that you list a sequence of things that are dealt with under the umbrella of science (an epistemological methodology) and then use that to somehow argue for the weakness in the metaphysical position of naturalism.If your argument is valid, it can be flipped around to undermine any particular metaphysics you prefer to a greater extent than it undermines naturalism. That is to say, whatever epistemological methodology you decide is best, it almost certainly fails to explain more things than science fails at, and cannot explain as much as science has been able to. Therefore, supernaturalism/dualism is undermined.To simplify: if naturalism assumes natural explanations without proving them then dualism assumes supernatural explanations without proving them, such as freewill, sin, biogenesis, cosmogenesis etc. You seem to special pleading for your own metaphysics. How do you get out of this? One of the most important within the philosophy of science is the Princple of Fallibilism. This has a long history, but it met up with science in a formal sense with the likes of Karl Popper's theory of knowledge, Critical Rationalism.I'm not sure you mean 'absolute' though, since science does deal in absolutes (According to the scientific methodology, the truth is not relative but absolute, it doesn't matter what culture you are from, gravity is either caused by curvature or it isn't - though there are some schools that believe that science is at least partially relative). Hmm, with the same facts you can conclude Last Thursdayism. I even know a great argument which says that the most probable state of affairs was for the universe to have been created at this instant (and not a nanosecond before).However, just because you can make up your own epistemological framework or pick one out of a lineup and conclude all manner of surreal things about reality...that doesn't mean that epistemological methodologies are equal.That's why philosophers argue a lot, but that you'll find that for the most part - the old ideas of dualism and idealism have been shown to be EPICALLY inadequate grounds upon which to base an epistemology. Epistemologies based on these can come up with wildly differring points of view on something as simple as 'what happens when we drop an apple on earth?'.Science has developed a methodology that helps sort some of the wheat from the chaff. It isn't always right - but it does lead to practical solutions to problems and openings to new avenues of interesting research. Something other methodologies have practically demonstrated their failings.If someone had committed a terrible crime against you or a family member (excuse the appeal to emotion, its utility is in driving a point home), would you accept the criminal's defence when faced with a pile of forensic evidence (fingerprints, DNA, treadmarks, fibres, powder, blood stains etc etc): The forensic explanation is largely just induction build-up. With the same facts, you can conclude that a mischievous pixie committed the crime: Oberon forbid that pixies are able to have precious man be wrong in all his forensic conclusions.Would you be happy if that argument meant that there was 'reasonable doubt' and led to him being released? If not, why does your argument not apply?

It's not straightforward arrogance that most scientists currently have. The evolutionists are slaves to the science-beast. They are forced to use the scientific method, they cannot reason freely. So I think what we see is not so much the I am right arrogance, but the science is right arrogance. So you should not so much talk to the evolutionists, but more talk through them to the science-beastie. And if you can persuade the science beast to let them go, then they can reason freely again.You can see that they are in the grips of science, rather then that they have a grip on science, by such things as that they don't acknowledge free will of people, and believe that goodness and badness are just evolved material things.How to tame such a beastie I do not know, but from my 10 years of experience in debating evolutionists, it is useless to address the people themselves, they simply do not have the freedom to reason.

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

Let me clarify. I ONLY CLAIMED the part you agreed with, I did not state that authority is meaningless.

---

Let's not play dumb. Shall we? Let's not pretend what you were talking about is simply recognizing the truth value of an isolated statement and not about the process. After all, what was the point of "logical and perceptive" if not to refer to process?

quote:

---

"A person without expertise cannot know that" is a silly claim, as I do know it.

---

Except you don't. You misstated what "argumentum ad logicam" is.

quote:

---

I shown that false premisses can have a true conclusion.

---

Indeed, but the problem is that the conclusion is not justified by the premises. Until you can justify your conclusion, we cannot know if it is true or false because false premises can lead to any conclusion you wish. You do know how to draw the truth table for X -> Y, yes?

quote:

---

If I knew that, why wouldn't I know the simple point you state.

---

Because you don't know logic. You even misstated your own premise.

quote:

---

Anyone knows why a syllogism is sound,. Because it is valid and true.

---

But valid syllogisms require the premises to be true. You're arguing about a completely different property: That implications off false premises can lead to true conclusions. What you're ignoring is that they also lead to false conclusions. That is, false premises lead to any conclusion you wish. You do know how to draw the truth table for X -> Y, yes?And since you have brought up the syllogism, your failure to comprehend logic shows. Take, for example, the following syllogism:Some X are Y.
Some X are not Y.
Therefore, all X are either Y or not Y.This is not a valid syllogism for it requires there to be an X in the first place which has not been established. Abelard has a good discourse on it. Have you read it?

quote:

---

Infact, the burden of proof rests on the claimant.

---

Indeed. That is why the Big Bang is considered the dominant theory for the expansion of the universe. All of the evidence points to it, it makes testable predictions, and so far there isn't anything to make us throw it away in favor of a more accurate theory.

quote:

---

But I do. Stating what evidence is and how science works doesn't prove I don't.

---

It is when you get it wrong.

quote:

---

Ofcourse, the observation of the higgs boson mass particle.

---

Um...the observation of the Higgs boson would be confirmation of the Big Bang. I asked if you had any indication of an observation that would falsify it. That is, after all, what you were claiming: We're looking for the Higgs because our current model of particle physics, which is part and parcel of the Big Bang, suggest that there ought to be a Higgs boson.

quote:

---

Ofcourse, this is very basic, and is understood by most people at EvC.

---

Not, apparently, by you.

quote:

---

If science can never declare truth, why would it's accuracy affect my beliefs, that deal with truth?

---

Because accuracy is an ever-increasing trait. Your claims violate things that we have observed and declare models that we know to be accurate to be wildly off. It is akin to a claim that no, pi is really an integer.

quote:

---

Biology? How so.

---

Good question. For all my statements regarding people not conflating evolution with cosmology, I went and wandered off the ranch.If you'll be so kind, I shall retract the statement and replace it with the more correct one:If that is true, why haven't you published? Your claim is quite literally Nobel Prize level stuff. If you can justify your assertions, you will change the very nature of physics around the world.

---

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.

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

Don't you know that the whole point is to show you why an appeal to authority is fallacious?

---

Since nobody on the science side of things has made an appeal to authority, one wonders why you have brought it up.

quote:

---

The problem is that a theory is not a proven truth, but infact a scientific theory.

---

You say that as if it were a bad thing.

quote:

---

Knowing the hypothetics of the ToE, as an expert - doesn't mean it happened historically.

---

And thus, we see the reason why: You don't know what a theory is.The reason why we have the theory is because we have the fact of it happening. You cannot have a theory without a fact to base it upon. The reason why the theory of evolution exists at all is because there was already established the fact of evolution.We have seen evolution happen right in front of our eyes. The theory of evolution seeks to explain the fact of evolution.

quote:

---

It means, by inference, you can soundly conclude that you are more able to know the ToE, and it's details.

---

But the only reason for the theory to exist in the first place, and this is the part you are skipping over, is because there was a fact that required a theory. Raw facts without any theoretical framework in which to place them are pretty worthless things.The entire point of science is to work with facts that create theories which will help you find more facts that can then be used to work the theory and so on.Any changes we have to the theory of evolution will not change the fact that evolution happened. What it will do is change the mechanisms by which evolution happened. Whether gravity is curvature of space-time, a force carried by gravitons, invisible rubber bands, or hordes of tiny angels pushing and pulling on things, the fact that gravity exists will not change.There is no denying the reality of evolution. We've seen it happen right in front of our eyes. You can run experiments that will show it happening right in front of your eyes.The only question is how.Question: Do you hold gravity to be as tenuous a concept as evolution? After all, evolution is more solidly based than gravity. We know what the effect of gravity is, but we still have no idea how it happens. We don't have a mechanism. We cannot manipulate it to make it do what we want it to. Contrast this with evolution where we do know how it happens (at least in part). We do have a mechanism. We can directly manipulate it to make it do what we want it to do.So is gravity "just a theory" or is it, to use your word, "truth"?

quote:

---

If we PRESUME negation through ignorance

---

Since we don't, let's not.

quote:

---

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.

---

You are confusing a mechanism with an observation. We can observe raw meat giving rise to maggots. That observation will never change. What was in question was the mechanism by which it happened. "Spontaneous generation" claimed that meat just did this as a property of meat. Well, there's a way to test this: Isolate the meat so that the only thing that can act upon it is its own devices and see what happens.Lo and behold, nothing happens. Now, that doesn't negate the observation. We have seen raw meat give rise to maggots right before our eyes. So since the observation is still true, it must be our mechanism that is not accurate. And, of course, that's what changes: It isn't the meat doing it on its own...it's the flies we're not seeing laying eggs on the meat that's doing it.

quote:

---

Can't you see the obvious error?

---

Yes. That's why we're trying to help you to see your error. It's obvious and we all see it.You don't.

quote:

---

Rhrain, you said science is accurate, not "true". That's exactly my point here. How can you be so obtuse?

---

Because I understand what science is.You don't.Quick: Is evolution a fact or a theory?Hint: It's a trick question.

---

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.

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

the appeal is enough to show how favouring the expert's opinion is not sound.

---

And if you could show an example of such, this conversation might be more fruitful. Since nobody has, one wonders why you brought it up in the first place.

quote:

---

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

---

Except it doesn't say what you think it says. As I said before, you think you corrected an error, but you didn't. You think you understand the philosophical term you put forward, but you don't. You think that if you can force an admission of agreement with you, then that will necessarily mean that your argument has at least a grain of truth to it.I'll see your "fallacy of exclusivity" (which is more commonly called "Questionable Cause") and raise you a "fallacy of association."

---

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.

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

So you agree that it is not necessarily true that a conclusion is false, if the premisses are false?

---

Of course...but do you know what you're overlooking?Quick: Draw the truth table for X -> Y. You do know how to do that, yes?

quote:

---

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.

---

But that isn't argumentum ad logicam. As I told you before, argumentum ad logicam is assuming the conclusion is false because the process is false. You do know how to draw the truth table for X -> Y, yes?

quote:

---

Behe, is wrong, therefore there is no intelligent design, because you're basically arguing irreducible complexity

---

And if you could find anybody who ever said such a thing, you might have a point. Since nobody has, one is left wondering why you have brought it up.

quote:

---

No, it's logical notation, that a conclusion isn't false because the premisses are.

---

Nice try, but that's my correction to you. Here is your statement...from this very post, I might add: That isn't argumentum ad logicam. Instead, it's a variation of strawman: Arguing a point different from the one that was made.

quote:

---

You are infact arguing the exact same thing now, and still saying I am incorrect.

---

Incorrect. I am still saying the exact same thing I always have. I am simply pointing out that you haven't been arguing against argumentum ad logicam. That phrase has been coming out of your mouth, but none of the examples you have given are examples of it.Therefore, you don't know what you're talking about. You think you corrected an error, but you didn't. You think you understand the philosophical term you put forward, but you don't. You think that if you can force an admission of agreement with you, then that will necessarily mean that your argument has at least a grain of truth to it.I'll see your "fallacy of exclusivity" (which is more commonly called "Questionable Cause") and raise you a "fallacy of association."

---

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.

Well, in defense of Mikey it seems exceedingly obvious at this point that everything in the parody seems to be coming to fruition -- which, quite possibly, was a tactic devised by Mike to get you to do the very thing that was parody, so that in the final analysis the parody turned out to be true.On the one hand it gives him the safe position of getting to say what he wanted to say, but gives him an easy out to say that it was all in the interest of fun and games. In this way, perhaps it was a self-fulfilling prophecy.But on the other hand, regardless of the approach, what he claims is a parody seems quite true, and I have called out many on the forum for the same thing. I'm just slightly less passive aggressive than Mike and will just come right out and say what I think needs to be said, your oh so delicate sensibilities be damned. I don't believe in being politically correct for the sake of being politically correct. However, I also know that you can catch more flies with honey than you can vinegar. You just have to pick and choose your battles wisely. Knowing when to go for the jugular and knowing when to befriend your opponent is an art form, one that we all need perfecting.The fact of the matter is that there is this a snobby, elitist attitude amongst serious atheists. You know which atheists I'm referring to. The kind that don't feel satisfied until they convert everyone to their own personal nihilistic hell -- a life devoid of any real meaning so that they can go on pretending that life is an unending series of really lucky cosmic accidents. It's kind of like men who refuse to marry or have kids, not because they aren't cut out for it, but because they are afraid of having something that they might love which will make them vulnerable. Or vastly worse, something might actually love them back. And then where would their meaningless be?And is not a serious atheist a paradox unto itself!?!? Who ever thought the promotion of nothingness could ever be so exhilarating that they spend inordinate amounts of time debunking that which they claim is not real to begin with. Ah, the epitome of logic! Okay I'm being facetious, but if it knocks a few "rationalists" off of their high horse, it needs to be said. Because condescension is, well... condescending.But at the same time, many of those rabid atheists make excellent points about theology, with its equally unending string of misnomers. While faith serves a vital function, for all humans, it isn't unreasonable for atheists to demand some kind of primer -- some kind of legitimate reason to believe.And there are many, many condescending theists who defend their tyrant God tooth and nail, and not to defend God for the sake of his holiness, but rather to defend their own philosophical position. In other words, many end up defending God for their own selfish motives rather than because they care about the atheists eternal disposition. Theists have to be very careful of their motivation. Their philanthropic interests can quickly devolve in to a personal battle of wits. And a potential convert quickly becomes an enemy rather than a victim they want to help.And then there are the theists who clearly don't care about anyone else, least of all God. They just want to be right, and God for them becomes a tool of manipulation rather than the sentient being deserving of all oblation. There are a few on this forum, but I won't name any names. They have become just as angry and cynical as the most rabid atheists on the forum.The bottom line is this: Not a single one of us knows it all, even though we are all capable of acting like condescending know-it-alls. We're all trying to find our way through the maze, compelled by a reason either unseen by some or unseen by all.And in the final analysis, few will see the light of the others position as long as we remain pigheaded and condescending. Because each others credibility feels like it is on the line, whether that is expressed openly or not. It's not so much the position, but the fact that not one of us desires to be wrong. In the hostile environment of EvC, no one feels safe to admit their faults for fear of public excoriation.But, whatever... You all get the point.

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

On the contrary, scientists using the scientific method have total freedom of reason, evidence uncluttered by myth or superstition.

Science does not have to cling to dogma, but creation "science" sure does. Here's an example:The Creation Research Society has the following on their website:

quote:

---

The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with an international membership.

​

CRS Statement of Belief

​

All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

​

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

​

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

​

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

​

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

---

Does this sound like science to you? Does this sound like research?Any time preconceived beliefs, such as these, override the scientific method, an individual is doing (or teaching) apologetics (defense of religion), not science. It doesn't matter what scientific degrees one may have; to agree to a set of standards such as these, which is common (whether explicit or implicit) in creationist circles, is to cease doing science and move into the realm of apologetics.No, not all viewpoints are equal.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.