tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3551243282820254248..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: WTF Is Science?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77618027586517025172013-01-29T10:13:08.465-05:002013-01-29T10:13:08.465-05:00"BTW I have to ask, so how about that second ..."BTW I have to ask, so how about that second law? And how do you know we come from monkeys?"<br /><br />You're kidding, right?<br /><br />Dave BaileyThe Rathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02487724361976424018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50931259368015226412013-01-28T00:00:40.372-05:002013-01-28T00:00:40.372-05:00The Rat
Thank you for making my point so eloquent...The Rat<br /><br />Thank you for making my point so eloquently!<br /><br />BTW I have to ask, so how about that second law? And how do you know we come from monkeys?<br /><br />RegardsAndrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66444798138718413732013-01-27T19:43:31.331-05:002013-01-27T19:43:31.331-05:00"sound and prudent judgment based on a simple..."sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts"<br /><br />That's how Webster defines 'common sense', NOT 'science'.<br /><br />Common sense is an exceptional " process that we should use in an ideal society to arrive at good policy".<br /><br />I'm guessing no one here, or anywhere, disagrees.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77789402014153252752013-01-27T13:52:26.846-05:002013-01-27T13:52:26.846-05:00"Andy my point is people here play the man an..."Andy my point is people here play the man and almost never the argument."<br /><br />Ad hominems are usually the wrong way to go. But when you hear the same tired old crap from creationists, as if it's supposed to be something new, it really gets maddening. I will probably scream loudly at the next person who drags out the second law of thermodynamics. And anyone who asks "If we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys" will be perilously close to getting the toe of my boot wedged in their rectum.The Rathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02487724361976424018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88069137205269853442013-01-27T11:21:13.665-05:002013-01-27T11:21:13.665-05:00I know you won't bother replying to the questi...I know you won't bother replying to the questions because you have no way of responding without showing how completely faith-based your views are. <br /><br />Re my point about faith-healing, why not enlighten us as to your complaint. Just repeating what I wrote and vaguely waving an "I disagree" banner, simply doesn't wash. The point I made is a straightforward, if humorous, way of pointing out that you can't get rid of something simply by giving it fancy name. That is, unless you believe that the placebo is no better than no treatment at all (if so why bother with it), or unless you believe those sugar pills actually cause the patient to get better in the same way normal medicine does (if so why not just give sugar pills), then you end up at faith-healing - ie, faith in the treatment is what apparently heals.<br /><br />And finally, I also find it amusing to see the huge amount of time and energy clowns like you spend telling people that you're not going to respond to them while all the while responding to them. Go check out, on this site, all the examples of this peculiar feature of those similarly minded to you. A huge amount of bluff, a huge amount of bluster, almost zero content.Luther Flinthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387473859274935699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34718898115013867922013-01-27T08:28:45.818-05:002013-01-27T08:28:45.818-05:00I won't bother replying to Luther, but for the...I won't bother replying to Luther, but for the edification of the rest of you I will give an example of his 'logic' in a direct quote from his web page:<br /><br />"Sceptics often laugh at those who believe in faith healing. Faith healing, the sceptics smugly tell us, is no more efficacious than a placebo. Which is to say that faith healing is no more efficacious than faith healing since that's precisely what a placebo is. And since the placebo actually does work - people actually do get better - this means faith healing actually works. And since it's only rational to believe in something that's been shown time and again to work, it's irrational for sceptics to disbelieve, and to laugh at those who believe, in faith healing. Thus sceptics are irrational. How very amusing."<br /><br />Yes, amusing, but perhaps not in the way he thinks.The Rathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02487724361976424018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70043612908544332472013-01-27T08:02:51.902-05:002013-01-27T08:02:51.902-05:00Diogenes says,
To have a policy, good or bad, you...Diogenes says,<br /><br /><i>To have a policy, good or bad, you must combine fact statements with value-statements.</i><br /><br />How do you do this? Seriously, what's the process that we should use in an ideal society to arrive at good policy? <br /><br />Should it be based on evidence? Should it be rational? Should we employ healthy skepticism? Can you put a name to the best mechanism that a society should employ?<br /> Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59093948152663664082013-01-26T22:09:41.362-05:002013-01-26T22:09:41.362-05:00Diogenes writes,
"But religion is not merely...Diogenes writes, <br />"But religion is not merely a belief in god"<br />Absolutely. No argument.<br /><br />As for science, I completely accept your definition of it, which you provided on another thread. <br />I think I have made it clear that I have no problem with acknowledging science as a remarkably effective tool (or practice, or discipline, or however one chooses to define it). Larry Moran, Richard Dawkins, etc. go further. They posit it as something for which I believe it is unfit - as a philosophical pillar upon which to create a better, more humane society.<br /><br />As for your question, "How does religion solve the problems 'caused' by science?", I don't understand your reason for posing it to me. I have made no such claim.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26556890555047754272013-01-26T21:42:24.023-05:002013-01-26T21:42:24.023-05:00@AB -
In the same way, a belief in god is just a ...@AB - <br /><i>In the same way, a belief in god is just a belief in god, neither 'dark' nor 'light'. </i><br /><br />But religion is not merely a belief in god. Western religion is based on the belief that those with the 'wrong' religion, or no religion, are immoral and destructive to society.<br /><br /><i>It's often hubris - both the thought that 'science will lead us to a brave new world' and 'my god is better than your god' that introduces the 'dark side' into either.</i><br /><br />Science produces fact-statements. It does not produce value-statements. To have a policy, good or bad, you must combine fact statements with value-statements.<br /><br />Value:(those who kill children should be killed) +<br /> Fact:(Jews murder children at Purim) <br /> --> Policy: (Kill the Jews)<br /><br />Religion produces fact-statements that are usually wrong, and value-statements that may be good or bad.<br /><br />Science produces fact-statements that are virtually always more accurate than the fact-statements produced by religion, and it does not produce value-statements at all.<br /><br />There are people who try to pass off their value statement as scientific ('blacks are inferior') but these people are not necessarily scientists, and not necessarily atheists.<br /><br />Sure, eugenics was an attempt to pass off value-statements as 'scientific.' But every major creationist, from 1920 to 1970, except G. M. Price, supported eugenics. <br /><br />Henry Morris, Tinkle, A. E. Wilder-Smith, Rushdoony etc. They all supported eugenics.<br /><br />How does religion solve the problems 'caused' by science?Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-92128305274138501012013-01-26T21:33:56.477-05:002013-01-26T21:33:56.477-05:00@Gross-
Andy you should know by now that the peopl...@Gross-<br /><i>Andy you should know by now that the people pleading for tolerance are by7 far the most intolerant. Richard Dawkins being a point in case</i><br /><br />No. Not even close. Virtually every fundamentalist in America has equated gays to animals, compared homosexuality to pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, etc. WorldNetDaily and John Hagee have demanded that all atheists be deported from America. There is no comparison and it is not even close.<br /><br />Gay people "have no more claims to special rights than child molesters or rapists." [Teacher's Resource Guide to Current Events for Christian Schools, 1998-1999, Bob Jones University Press, 1998] [<a href="http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/07/photos-evangelical-curricula-louisiana-tax-dollars" rel="nofollow">See more wonderful facts in taxpayer-funded Bob Jones textbooks for kids</a>]<br /><br />The ID and creationist movements engage in far more suppression of thought outright, than Dawkins ever did, and they're funded by the government via education vouchers.<br /><br />The Anti-Darwinist Thought Police tolerate no deviation from the creationist party line. Just read Answers in Genesis' Statement of Faith, or the policies of Bob Jones University. Any one who believed in evolution would be fired from Bob Jones and even the janitors who work at the Creation Museum cannot believe in evolution. <br /><br />Little kids who compete in AIG's "Science Fairs" must sign AIG's creepy "Statement of Faith" which says that no history, science, eyewitness reports, or any observation ever could ever prove Ken Ham wrong. If any janitor at the Creation Museum disagrees with that, he'll be fired.<br /><br />William Dembski suggested that Noah's Flood was not global, and the seminary he works for threatened to fire him. He knuckled under and decided Noah's Flood was global, after all.<br /><br />Dawkins' "intolerance" is that he says outright there is no evidence for God, and no logical proofs of God's existence that don't involve logical fallacies, and creationists are either ignorant or dishonest. <br /><br />This hurts your feelings, but it is not even close to intolerance.<br />Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68182749602027159772013-01-26T20:06:14.896-05:002013-01-26T20:06:14.896-05:00Dave writes,
"I don't agree that science...Dave writes, <br />"I don't agree that science has a dark side."<br /><br />That's fair enough. Science, in and of itself, doesn't have a dark side. In the same way, a belief in god is just a belief in god, neither 'dark' nor 'light'. The dark and light come from what various people choose to do with either, in terms of how they extrapolate from them to live better lives themselves and work to improve the lives of others, or contrarily produce or excuse evil.<br />It's often hubris - both the thought that 'science will lead us to a brave new world' and 'my god is better than your god' that introduces the 'dark side' into either.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63262801534780028162013-01-26T13:37:11.764-05:002013-01-26T13:37:11.764-05:00To attempt 'dark' and 'light' pola...To attempt 'dark' and 'light' polarisation of both science and religion is moving into murky waters IMO. It is arguable that the increased reproduction that we engender by 'scientifically' improving health, sanitation and agriculture is stifling the planet, by pouring an unhealthy amount of its resources into human flesh and living space, and will ultimately lead to a global catastrophe. This is 'light' intent that can have 'dark' consequences. It is arguable that the Catholic church's position on contraception and abortion is an evil for the same reason. It is arguable that war, disease and pestilence help limit the population, and defer impending catastrophe. ... I won't defend any of these views myself; they are not 'ought's, and naturally I favour 'kind' principles, as nearly all humans, secular and otherwise, do - but things are rarely black and white. AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22251128383371515032013-01-26T08:28:38.622-05:002013-01-26T08:28:38.622-05:00Why not answer the questions instead of your conti...Why not answer the questions instead of your continuing obfuscation. As regards the kindergarten, I note your first comments to me - obfuscation and insults - and now, more obfuscation and more insults. Why not just try to answer the questions - I know it must be difficult when you actually have to give reasons for the blind faith you have, but hey ho. Luther Flinthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387473859274935699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30222163045227231802013-01-26T08:24:22.607-05:002013-01-26T08:24:22.607-05:00I agree that there is often a double standard, it ...I agree that there is often a double standard, it has irked me in the past as well. But I don't agree that science has a dark side. It is simply science. Whatever nasty uses its discoveries are put to is a product of human frailties and failings. I also view atrocities like so-called 'honour killings' the same way. Religion may be an enabler and facilitator of such behaviour, but the root cause is human.<br /><br />Dave BaileyThe Rathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02487724361976424018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11461929371974711752013-01-26T08:18:23.621-05:002013-01-26T08:18:23.621-05:00Me: " "...and how many orders of magnitu...Me: " "...and how many orders of magnitude greater is the stuff you then extrapolate to?" Sounds like an attempt to obfuscate, but I'll give you time to explain, I'm heading to bed."<br /><br />Luther: "@The Rat<br />I agree your answer was entirely an attempt to obfuscate."<br /><br />Ah yes, the old "I know you are but what am I?" argument. Kindergarten discourse at its best. You're truly pathetic. I think I'm done with you. Have fun in the sandbox and don't let a cat bury you.<br /><br />Dave BaileyThe Rathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02487724361976424018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48301348408561375452013-01-26T08:14:23.358-05:002013-01-26T08:14:23.358-05:00"Dave
I have 2 questions for you.."
Wo..."Dave<br /><br />I have 2 questions for you.."<br /><br />Wow, we've never heard that argument before. Oh, wait, we have: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=747_Junkyard_argument<br /><br />Dave BaileyThe Rathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02487724361976424018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-92225611537138332492013-01-25T11:07:15.158-05:002013-01-25T11:07:15.158-05:00Andy my point is people here play the man and almo...Andy my point is people here play the man and almost never the argument.Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16425488594825995242013-01-25T09:35:06.966-05:002013-01-25T09:35:06.966-05:00@The Rat
I agree your answer was entirely an attem...@The Rat<br />I agree your answer was entirely an attempt to obfuscate. You made no real attempt to address the point. Firstly, you say it is not faith you have in natural selection and yet you believe it to capable of doing almost anything on the basis of having seen it do almost nothing. That's why I asked for your best example of what it has done and that's why you didn't answer. The point being that when you do answer, you then need to examine how much more you are claiming for it than that which you have evidence for. Consider, by way of analogy, I've seen birds build nests but that doesn't mean I can extrapolate and say they built the pyramids. That's what you;re doing with natural selection only in your case it's even worse.Luther Flinthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387473859274935699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83151544212391324322013-01-25T05:51:59.712-05:002013-01-25T05:51:59.712-05:00needless to say, I don't always live up to tha...needless to say, I don't always live up to that standard, but I try to.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70812709873133266352013-01-25T05:50:45.735-05:002013-01-25T05:50:45.735-05:00Andre writes,
"Can we say that there is a sin...Andre writes,<br />"Can we say that there is a single secular person on these blogs that are using the classical definition of tolerance Andy? I say not one!"<br /><br />Okay, that's your view, but it's entirely different from mine. I don't think of it that way. When I come to this site, I argue with statements that I disagree with, not people. I might agree with something someone says and then go after something else they say. Like I'm doing with you now. <br />I think it's important to stay focused on the ideas, opinions, etc. that are expressed, and stay UNfocused on the person expressing them.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11147238449710250952013-01-25T05:41:47.862-05:002013-01-25T05:41:47.862-05:00Here he says and I quote "Creationists know n...Here he says and I quote "Creationists know nothing"<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9uhE4CT2xMAndrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36513418395303627862013-01-25T04:33:39.734-05:002013-01-25T04:33:39.734-05:00Can we say that there is a single secular person o...Can we say that there is a single secular person on these blogs that are using the classical definition of tolerance Andy? I say not one! Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83119952623739193992013-01-25T04:28:39.429-05:002013-01-25T04:28:39.429-05:00You are correct it is a generalization indeed, it ...You are correct it is a generalization indeed, it is however not an incorrect one......<br /><br />http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6742Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40189153151387014682013-01-25T03:44:32.382-05:002013-01-25T03:44:32.382-05:00Andre, although I understand your point, statement...Andre, although I understand your point, statements such as <br /><br />"... the people pleading for tolerance are by far the most intolerant" are exactly the type of comments I try NOT to make. It is a sweeping generalization no less so than it would be for RD to call all religious people 'stupid', which to my knowledge he hasn't done. Oh, I know that he has come close to that on numerous occasions, such as in the link you provide. <br />But I am quite sure that Richard Dawkins would, if pressed on the question and his response, admit that there are many intelligent religious people. <br />On the other hand, he WOULD probably agree with the statement, 'religion is stupid'. THAT is an intolerant point of view that he can be faulted for. andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16267400103672461722013-01-25T03:42:05.936-05:002013-01-25T03:42:05.936-05:00Dave
I have 2 questions for you....
1) If I chu...Dave<br /><br />I have 2 questions for you....<br /><br /><br />1) If I chuck a pile of matter in a heap and leave it what are the chances that it will become an Mazda RX7 Rotary motor in a billion years?<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BCgl2uumlI<br /><br />2.) If I chuck a pile of matter into a heap what are the chances that it will become a molecular rotary motor in a billion years?<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjdPTY1wHdQ<br /><br />no mind involved you say? That takes a ludicrous amount of faith to believe!Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.com