Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why do creationist posters quote so?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 31 of 45 (75549)
12-29-2003 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by DNAunion
12-26-2003 2:55 PM


The material doesn't say you - the person doing the quoting - has to have direct evidence, despite what your use of "you" in that statement (and some of your others too) suggest.
But how would you know that the authority has the data? His say-so? Why not have him or her just tell us the data, and then at that point, you don't have to take his word as an authority, because now you have the data. Again, the argument from authority pales in comparison to the argument from evidence.
Because many competent authorities on atomic structure have told us they exist.
...based on data, freely avaliable, and collected via a method consistent with the scientific process. I would never believe that electrons exist because Steve Weinburg told me "they exist because I say they do."
You're confusing my position. I'm not saying that all authorities are liars. I'm saying that there's no reason to believe an authority without data, and once you have the data, their position as an authority is made irrelevant.
Who needs to have the evidence switches: first it is you, then it is basically anyone
No, it's always the same person: those interested in the subject in question. If they don't have the data, appeals to authority cannot be trusted. Once they have the data, appeals to authority are unnecessary.
Your sloppy comprehension does not constitute evidence of my sloppy writing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by DNAunion, posted 12-26-2003 2:55 PM DNAunion has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 32 of 45 (75550)
12-29-2003 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by DNAunion
12-27-2003 12:58 PM


A quick search of Crashfrog's posts - looking at just one of the thread's s/he's posted in recently - turned up several instances of him/her relying upon authority in his/her arguments.
None of these are links to any post of mine.
Crashfrog cannot, without directly contradicting his/her own claim, assert that we can't rely upon information we know only from having it conveyed to us by competent authorities in the field.
Woah, wait a minute, chief. Your failure to properly comprehend my argument is not evidence against it.
I never said we couldn't trust information from authorities. After all information in science is supposed to be gathered via the transparent scientific methodology, which gives us an independent way to assess the quality of that data.
What I said is that we couldn't trust the conclusions of authorities without access to the same information they used to make those conclusions. And at that point - with that data in hand - we should be able to draw the same conclusion, making the authority irrelevant except for the purpose of illustration or clairity.
The act of quoting scientists itself is not illegitimate
I have not said it is.
In our arguments, it is not illegitimate to rely upon information we know because competent authorities in the field have conveyed it to us and others
I have not said it is.
then what's the problem?
With using information from authorities gathered via the scientific process? None whatsoever. Where did I say there was one?
First, the person is showing that he/she is not making unsupported assertions or offering his/her own personal opinion.
And yet, if it's invalid for me to do so, it's equally invalid for an authority to do so. If they have evidence that supports their argument or conclusion, let it be known. At that point their authority ceases to be relevant. Argument from authority must always give way to argument from evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by DNAunion, posted 12-27-2003 12:58 PM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by DNAunion, posted 12-29-2003 7:35 PM crashfrog has replied

  
DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 45 (75685)
12-29-2003 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by crashfrog
12-29-2003 2:24 AM


quote:
Argument from authority must always give way to argument from evidence.
A legitimate appeal to authority is already based on evidence: multiple competent authorities in the field who are familiar with the various experimental and observational evidences related to the particular position all agree that the evidence points to a particular conclusion. The evidence is there, supporting their statements, even if not explicitly given. When "my" geneticists stated that DNA contains information they weren't a couple of weirdos contradicting the view of a vast many other geneticists; the others would agree with their statement because of the evidences they all know of that support that position.
If anyone knows something about genetics, s/he already knows both the view of geneticists at large on the matter and the evidences that back it up. The material that explains all of this covers entire chapters in college texts and I wasn't about to reread chapter and chapter, then copy paragraph after paragraph to try to support all of the logic with quotes. I did spend a great deal of time and effort explaining how the information is stored in base sequences, how that information is processed by a ribosome, what that information does in the cell, how that information produces higher-level (tissue, organ, organism) traits, and so on. It is hardly as though I did nothing but quote authors who were making unsupported personal statements.
Now, since you bring it up, can you show us legitimate evidence that forces my "argument from authority" to give way? No, you can't. In this case, my "argument from authority" is an argument based on evidence, just transitively.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 12-29-2003 2:24 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 12-30-2003 5:21 AM DNAunion has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 34 of 45 (75778)
12-30-2003 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by DNAunion
12-29-2003 7:35 PM


A legitimate appeal to authority is already based on evidence
Then, by definition, it's not an appeal to authority - it's an appeal to evidence.
Essentially my argument is that, of three statements:
1) "evolution is correct because Stephen Jay Gould says so."
2) "evolution is correct because Stephen Jay Gould says so based on such-and-such evidence."
3) "evolution is correct because of such-and-such evidence."
1 and 2 are not equivalent, but 2 and 3 are. 1 is a fallacious appeal to authority. 2 and 3 are appeals to evidence. You may feel that 2 is a legitamate appeal to authority; I agree that it's a legitamate argument, but not because of the authority, but because of the evidence.
The evidence is there, supporting their statements, even if not explicitly given.
Why? Simply because they're an authority? What a world of credulity and naivete you must live in. How are we to be sure that an "authority's" conclusions are based on evidence without access to that evidence? And once we have the evidence, why do we need the authority?
I just don't see how a reasonable person could trust that an authority would always be honest enough to support their conclusions with evidence.
In this case, my "argument from authority" is an argument based on evidence, just transitively.
Then it's hardly argument from authority, is it? It's argument from evidence.
Look, if we're just arguing about what words mean, then we're saying the same thing differently. I know - or at least, assume you're reasonable enough to realize - that you don't think "Stephen Jay Gould says so" is a compelling argument. If you believe that "Stephen Gay Gould says so because of such-and-such evidence" is an argument from authority, then I'll accept that as a "legitamate argument from authority." But personally I don't believe that's what is meant by "argument from authority" because to me, that's an argument from evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by DNAunion, posted 12-29-2003 7:35 PM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by DNAunion, posted 12-30-2003 6:42 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 45 (75786)
12-30-2003 6:49 AM


Like the Bible
An alternative hypothesis is that they are simply quoting evolutionary biologists the way they often quote the Bible -- selectively, for the purpose of supporting some preconceived idea. And with troublesome context carefully snipped away.
[This message has been edited by lpetrich, 12-30-2003]

  
DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 45 (75881)
12-30-2003 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by crashfrog
12-30-2003 5:21 AM


quote:
if we're just arguing about what words mean, then we're saying the same thing differently. I know - or at least, assume you're reasonable enough to realize - that you don't think "Stephen Jay Gould says so" is a compelling argument. If you believe that "Stephen Gay Gould says so because of such-and-such evidence" is an argument from authority, then I'll accept that as a "legitamate argument from authority." But personally I don't believe that's what is meant by "argument from authority" because to me, that's an argument from evidence.
That's good enough for me. My main point has been that my quotes were legitimate.
In fact, the only reason I'm even posting in this thread is because one Mr Hambre falsely accused me of being a Creationist who used notoriously misleading quotes. Mr Hambre has failed to support either position...he's lost. Now that that has been settled I no longer have any real reason to continue, or interest in continuing, to post in this thread.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-30-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 12-30-2003 5:21 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 12-30-2003 7:05 PM DNAunion has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 37 of 45 (75885)
12-30-2003 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by DNAunion
12-30-2003 6:42 PM


DNAunion writes:
In fact, the only reason I'm even posting in this thread is because one Mr Hambre falsely accused me of being a Creationist who used notoriously misleading quotes. Mr Hambre has failed to support either position...he's lost. Now that that has been settled I no longer have any real reason to continue, or interest in continuing, to post in this thread.
Well, okay, but I, for one, am still confused about why so vehement an evolutionist as yourself would say this in Message 81 of the "Abiogenesis - Or Better Living Through Chemistry" thread:
No experiment to date has demonstrated that undirected, non-biological chemistry alone can generate biological information of the kind needed for a "simple" RNA self-replicator. There is more to life than just chemistry; there is also information processing.
Is the "there is also information processing" your entire answer to "There is more to life than just chemistry"? If so then that's fine, but MrHambre was not alone in thinking he saw in this a hunter's blind from which to fire off appeals to divine intervention.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by DNAunion, posted 12-30-2003 6:42 PM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by NosyNed, posted 12-30-2003 7:58 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 39 by Rei, posted 12-30-2003 8:28 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 41 by DNAunion, posted 12-31-2003 7:13 PM Percy has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 38 of 45 (75896)
12-30-2003 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Percy
12-30-2003 7:05 PM


But an evolutionist might not know how life came into existance, Percy. He might be completely happy with the ToE but not be comfortable with what ideas we do have about abiogenesis. Right?

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 12-30-2003 7:05 PM Percy has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 39 of 45 (75903)
12-30-2003 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Percy
12-30-2003 7:05 PM


You will find that DNAUnion deliberately avoids stating his own stances, so that he can criticize other people for their stances without having to have scrutiny come to his own.

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 12-30-2003 7:05 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by MrHambre, posted 12-31-2003 12:10 AM Rei has not replied
 Message 42 by DNAunion, posted 12-31-2003 7:38 PM Rei has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 40 of 45 (75934)
12-31-2003 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Rei
12-30-2003 8:28 PM


quote:
You will find that DNAUnion deliberately avoids stating his own stances, so that he can criticize other people for their stances without having to have scrutiny come to his own
/*MrHambre*/ Grow up, Rei.

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Rei, posted 12-30-2003 8:28 PM Rei has not replied

  
DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 45 (76076)
12-31-2003 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Percy
12-30-2003 7:05 PM


quote:
Well, okay, but I, for one, am still confused about why so vehement an evolutionist as yourself would say this in Message 81 of the "Abiogenesis - Or Better Living Through Chemistry" thread:
**********************************
No experiment to date has demonstrated that undirected, non-biological chemistry alone can generate biological information of the kind needed for a "simple" RNA self-replicator. There is more to life than just chemistry; there is also information processing.
**********************************
Why would I say that? Because it's true...would you want me to lie?
And as every evolutionist knows (and as Nosy Ned alluded to), the origin of life, and life's subsequent evolution over billions of years into what we see now, are two completely separate things.
quote:
Is the "there is also information processing" your entire answer to "There is more to life than just chemistry"?
Not necessarily. There's also controlled energy flow through cells, which, unlike their abiotic surroundings, are always maintained far from thermodynamic equilibrium.
My stating, quite correctly, that there is more to life than just chemistry does not mean I am a Creationist.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-31-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 12-30-2003 7:05 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 12-31-2003 9:20 PM DNAunion has replied

  
DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 45 (76078)
12-31-2003 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Rei
12-30-2003 8:28 PM


quote:
You will find that DNAUnion deliberately avoids stating his own stances, so that he can criticize other people for their stances without having to have scrutiny come to his own.
More like..."You will find that when DNAunion states something as self-evidenct and non-controversial as "DNA contains information" that he gets accused of being a Creationist and must defend his obviously true statements from attacks from multiple people over the course of multiple weeks."
Now, if people will be so obstinate and dishonest when it comes to something that I can fully support with tons of mainstream material and logical explanations, imagine what would happen if I made an even somewhat controversial statement! Basically, it would be pointltess to try to discuss controversial matters with people who are so irrational and disingenuous.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-31-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Rei, posted 12-30-2003 8:28 PM Rei has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 43 of 45 (76088)
12-31-2003 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by DNAunion
12-31-2003 7:13 PM


DNAunion writes:
My stating, quite correctly, that there is more to life than just chemistry does not mean I am a Creationist.
You're still leaving me with an uncomfortable feeling. Regarding this from my previous email:
Percy writes:
DNAunion writes:
No experiment to date has demonstrated that undirected, non-biological chemistry alone can generate biological information of the kind needed for a "simple" RNA self-replicator. There is more to life than just chemistry; there is also information processing.
Is the "there is also information processing" your entire answer to "There is more to life than just chemistry"? If so then that's fine, but MrHambre was not alone in thinking he saw in this a hunter's blind from which to fire off appeals to divine intervention.
Could you address just the last sentence and tell us directly and without equivocation that the concern is completely without merit and due simply to a misinterpretation?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by DNAunion, posted 12-31-2003 7:13 PM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by DNAunion, posted 01-01-2004 11:56 AM Percy has not replied

  
DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 45 (76124)
01-01-2004 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Percy
12-31-2003 9:20 PM


Yes, the concern is completely without merit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 12-31-2003 9:20 PM Percy has not replied

  
LoganGator
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 45 (96451)
03-31-2004 6:18 PM


we quote because we don't make stuff up

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024