And it was science, not a religious book that eventually made the correction. Do you understand that?
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!
- Thread starter ThisIsMyUserName
- Start date
And it was science, not a religious book that eventually made the correction. Do you understand that?
That's not how it works. The Holy Wikipedia includes this line to describe it, but you will find the same concept in other references:
'theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid.'
I'm not sure how you have come to the view that I haven't been doing exactly that.
Hear this guy out on what he does, and what scientific consensus is. You might note that he is a marine biologist, and the variability in results is generally higher in biology than other areas, so consensus can be difficult to reach. Note too that he does not use either the word hypothesis or theory. I don't think he would consider the distinction that important to the work he does. He wants to find out what is going on in nature, and contribute to the process of generating high-quality explanations:
Stuu: Tell me about how a hydroplate can slide off a relatively low mid-oceanic ridge, lubricated by water, and subsequenty run up to a much greater height in collision with other hydroplates which also arrived lubricated on water, and then stay there without Newton's First Law and Hooke's Law collaborating to reverse that?
I stand by my question. If it's not much of a challenge, it shouldn't be too much for you to deal with, I would have thought.
Stuu: Can you explain why the uranium content of meteorites is different to the uranium content of either the oceanic crust (lower) or the continental crust (higher)?
I have already.
I remember discussing convection in the mantle with you before.
Or no?
Chin up! At least it won't be 150kmh-1 on hard wickets...mind you the rumours are that India has this new flash pace attack.
Stuart
So? Consensus didn't prove anything. The consensus was entirely wrong. It's been that way all throughout history. How about the consensus that Bretz's theory of the Missoula Flood was deranged thinking? Bretz was castigated for decades by those holding the consensus view. They thought they could humiliate him into shutting up and ended up being humiliated themselves. Are you still going to argue that consensus is king?
You need to take great care when adding context to what people say. My contention was not that the guy with the idea should describe a difference between a hypothesis and a theory, but that he should be allowed to label his idea as he sees fit. If he is willing to bow to the evidence, we can consider the validity of his ideas based on logic, reason and evidence.
I realize that there is a distinction between the two terms — heck, some of it might even be useful — but the point I want to get across is that "consensus" is never a rational contributing factor, regardless of how many people or sources say it is.
I'm getting dizzy now. This is like argumentum ad populum-Inception.
Because you keep insisting that "consensus" is somehow a rational part of the discussion.
He's just repeating the same error. There might be such a thing as a scientific consensus, but it has no bearing on the veracity of an idea. Never.
When you're willing to wake up to this, a sensible discussion might be possible.
I did deal with it. What you described is not proposed. When you describe something that we do propose, I will attempt to explain it as best I can.
Me too.
Maybe. :idunno:
Our cricketers have gone downhill fast since Baz retired, the World Cup result notwithstanding.
Right Divider
Body part
I believe that the majority of TOL would agree with you. :french:
Do you respect Brian Tamaki calling himself bishop?
Concensus is central. It's really the process of one guy saying 'hey I've done some work around Antarctica and come up with this great idea to explain why you only find penguins at the poles. I'm going to call it my polar penguin theory, which will explain why they're all down where I've been working, and also around the Arctic (where I haven't been working)'.
Now, it doesn't really matter what the explanation is, does it. We already know the consensus will not be this theory, whatever it is, because others working in ornithology or marine biology are going to quickly point out that there are no penguins in the Arctic, and there are penguins living at the Equator around the Galapagos Islands. If all the researchers working independently published their work with no intercommunication or corroboration then a really important error-correction mechanism is removed. The Antarctic guy does not have complete information, and he does not have discussion with others who know the field in depth so he can work through the details with useful, robust feedback. He does not have the complete picture so he alone cannot form the central penguin geographical range theory for everyone else to either accept or reject. That would be a very inefficient way to do science, especially today, and would end with disjointed knowledge about penguins.
What he actually does is reads others' papers and cites their ideas in his own work then goes to conferences or has online discussions where a group of experts can each bring their own research to a discussion that identifies common principles and erroneous ideas. They will come to a provisional kind of agreement about what a good theory must account for. They will incorporate that wider experience into their individual work and, crucially, each will try to disprove the consensus view as it emerges.
Others here have identified wrong ideas in the past that were the consensus at the time. That is a very likely outcome in a field of study with not much evidence to go on, where the accumulation of evidence has a good chance of overturning the consensus. Theories that are supported by a large and increasing body of corroborating evidence will not be overturned, although they may be refined, or pencil details might get inked in.
If you read the discussions of Young Earth Creation 'scientists' that get published online you see that the level of consensus is very low. It is difficult to find another creationist organisation that completely endorses Mr. Brown's ideas, for example. They do have one point of 'consensus', that the earth suffered a global flood a few thousand years ago.
That's a wrong consensus, but they won't be able to correct it because it is not up for discussion. It's not really a proper point of consensus, it is a self-imposed assumed limitation. That's the chief reason why creation science isn't really science. It's cherry-picking only the evidence that supports the assumption, with discussion that points out that it was in error to include evidence that contradicted the flood! Mr. Brown does it slightly differently, but it is the same result.
I recommend not getting so hung up on veracity. It's not like scientists are struggling to turn the pages in a book of All Knowledge that we are reading by a dim bulb. It is that they are writing the book. So please understand that science is not about absolutes, or truth, or Truth. It is about the consensus view about models that have the highest probability of being the best explanation. This book being written already has many lines scribbled out and whole pages torn out. That's what you have to do to produce good writing, and good knowledge.
The role of evidence is to be the arbitration of all of that. It is the ultimate judging panel.
Do you think it was residual McCullum momentum that got us to No.2 in the test rankings? Could be. But I think there is also something in the modern day phenomenon of being 'found out' through video analysis. A few of our players will have to come back with something new if they are going to be useful in the future. I think that might have even happened to Steve Smith in this last series. But he will shape-shift again into a new terror before their next series. We can still call him Wagner's bunny for now though.
Stuart
Right Divider
Body part
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Oh? So you were born a fool who says "There is no God"?
Well, in any case, you are presently a fool, as you regularly, shamelessly showcase for us on TOL.
What makes you call something like 10,000 things, "gods", Stuu?
I, for one, do not call anything other than God, "God". I don't call any things "gods". Should I be calling some things, "gods", Stuu? If so, which things would you say I should be calling "gods"? Which (if any) things are you calling "gods", when you say, "What makes you reject so many gods?" See, I don't have any problem like the problem you create for yourself, because I do not say, "What makes you reject so many gods, Stuu?" For, how could I mean something by saying "What makes you reject so many gods, Stuu?", while I do not even call any things "gods"? I wouldn't even know what I should be calling "gods"; perhaps you can tell us what you imagine we should be calling "gods", eh?
When you say your phrase, "so many gods", do you believe you are calling things "gods"? Really though, why would you even bother to say your phrase, "so many gods", if you do not even believe you are calling things "gods", therein? So, what (if any) things are you calling "gods", Stuu? For you to admit that you do not believe you are calling any things "gods" will be for you to admit that you do not believe you mean anything when you say, "What makes you reject so many gods?" Nothing new, though, as every Darwin cheerleader is enthusiastically given over to the practice of saying words meaninglessly. That is all Darwinism is: an irrational language game centered about a vocabulary of certain words and phrases used meaninglessly by Darwin cheerleaders.
What makes you call something "Odin"? I, for one, do not call anything, "Odin". What (if anything) are you calling "Odin"? What (if anything) would you say I, and others, should be calling "Odin"?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Here you are, once again, using the word "evidence" meaninglessly. Remember, Stuu, all the questions I've asked you about your use of the word, "evidence"--all of which you've stonewalled against thus far. Here are some of them:
What is it, Stuu? Can something be BOTH evidence AND not clear? Yes or No?
Can evidence be inconsistent with evidence? Yes or No?
Do you imagine that nobody notices that you are forced into silence by these, and many other questions?
Remember this, Stuu:
So far, Stuu, you've been nothing but a cowardly poser regarding epistemology. Perhaps you do not consider questions regarding the nature of evidence essential, or even germane to epistemology? But, if you do consider the subject of evidence to be essential to epistemology, you've sure shrunk from my questions to you regarding epistemology. Why is that? Simple: because you know almost nothing, and what you do know is that you have absolutely no hope of attempting to answer the questions I've asked you without further embarrassing yourself. You're dedicated to your nonsense, to your irrationality, and to the incoherence of your ravings. So, of course you must needs fail regarding epistemology!
All the fictional gods asserted by all the different humans who have claimed there are gods. I'm with you, I have no idea what a god is. Do you?
Stuart
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Unlike you, I do not call any things "fictional gods". So, what (if any) things do you call "fictional gods"? What (if any) things would you say I should call "fictional gods"?
Unlike you, I do not say things like, "He believes in gods," "He does not believe in gods", "He believes in fictional gods", "He does not believe in fictional gods", "He claims there are gods", "He claims their are not gods", "He does not claim there are gods", "He does not claim there are not gods", etc. It's funny, though, that you're committed to saying such things as these. In fact, it makes you feel proud of yourself to say such meaningless things. You're committed to saying things that are not cognitively meaningful, such as "I do not believe in any gods", and "I do not believe in fictional gods".
Why are you proud of yourself for saying things that are not cognitively meaningful?
When you say, "I have no idea what a god is", do you have an idea that you mean something in saying "I have no idea what a god is"? Because, here's the thing: I, for one, have no idea that you mean something in saying, "I have no idea what a god is". I certainly do not assume that you must mean something in saying it. I'm well aware that lots of people say lots of things, lots of the time, meaning nothing by what they say. For instance, I'm well aware that Darwin cheerleaders, as Darwin cheerleaders, say many things, very often, and as a matter of thoughtless course, by which they mean nothing, whatsoever. For instance, their very favorite words, "evolve" and "evolution"--these are noises y'all love to make, and yet you mean nothing by them. Of course, that you mean nothing by such words is what makes it impossible for you to speak coherently about your use of them, whenever I ask you questions about your use of them.
Last edited:
I don't know what they are, but other people call them gods. As with characters in fictional writing or television, they aren't really there, but for the purpose of discussing claims made on behalf of them, I pretend they exist.
What do you think of all the gods that you believe are fictional?
Stuart
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
I don't know that you are calling any things "they", here. I certainly do not assume that you are doing so. Do you believe you are calling some things, "they", here?
I don't know that you, or other people, are calling any things "gods", when you, or other people, say the word, "gods".
Notice that I asked you, What (if any) things do you call "fictional gods"? Do you call any things "fictional gods"? If so, what things do you call "fictional gods"?
Notice that I did not say "Do you know what fictional gods are?" and yet, you reacted to the question I asked you as though you think I had said, "Do you know what fictional gods are?" Problem is, I did not say, nor would I say, "Do you know what fictional gods are?" Rather, I asked you a question:
What (if any) things do you call "fictional gods"?
Do you call any things "fictional gods"? If so, what do you call "fictional gods"?
If you do not call any things "fictional gods", then, when you say something like, "I don't know what [fictional gods] are", you are merely uttering nonsense.
Since I do not call any things "fictional gods", I would not say something like, "I don't know what [fictional gods] are".
I do not call any things "characters in fictional writing or television". I do not call any things "fictional characters". I do not say things like "Fictional characters aren't really there", or "Fictional characters do not exist", or, "I pretend that fictional characters exist". For, to say such things would be to merely say nonsense. At least, I would not know what (if anything) I ought to be meaning by saying such things. Do you know what (if anything) I ought to be meaning by such things? But, unlike myself, you seem to think that when you say such things, you, as a matter of course, can't but be saying things that are cognitively meaningful.
To what (if any) things are you referring by your phrase, "all the gods that you believe are fictional"?
I, for one, do not call any things "gods that are fictional", nor "fictional gods", nor "gods that I believe are fictional", nor "gods that you believe are fictional", etc., just as I do not call any things "gods that are not fictional", nor "non-fictional gods", nor "gods that I believe are not fictional", nor "gods that you believe are not fictional", etc.
Would you say I am obligated to call some things, "gods that are fictional"? Would you say I am obligated to assume that you are calling some things, "all the gods that you believe are fictional"?
I suppose it depends on what impression you wish to leave, and whom you wish to leave it upon.
Stuart
Who? :idunno:
It's anti-science.
You mean they would look at the — shock, horror — evidence?
:yawn:
Science is the process of throwing out ideas based on evidence, logic and reason.
Then talk about the evidence. :up:
I don't know what it is that has been lost. All I know is that Australia have a system that churns out arrogant, fearless, dominant cricketers, while NZ play like weaklings — even when they win.
Under Baz, they played like champions even when they lost.
missed the point. It was not reliance on a 2000 year old cobbled together religious text that changed the consensus but science. Copernicus, Galileo---remember them? Currently the consensus of a heliocentric solar system is the consensus. Do you have an issue with the current consensus? If so why?
Right Divider
Body part
Nope... you're wrong. Consensus proves nothing with regard to truth. Consensus simply means lots of people believe it.
Right Divider
Body part
The idea of a heliocentric solar system is not proven true because most people believe it. Consensus is not proof of anything but consensus.
You're the one missing the point. Consensus on a subject doesn't prove anything other than many people believe the same thing. That is all that consensus is. That's all the consensus that Bretz was wrong about the Missoula flood proved. That's all the consensus that the sun orbited the earth proved. Consensus is not evidence for or against any belief. I've just proved that in my two examples.
You seem to have problems understanding the English language:
It seems that In your mind, which I take from the arguments you make, public opinion is always correct for you keep saying consensus is evidence of truth. It's clearly not. Consensus is evidence that some idea is held by a majority of those who compose whatever group it is that holds that consensus. How about the case of Barry Marshall who first recognized that ulcers were caused by a specific bacteria? The consensus said he was dead wrong, and those holding the consensus view castigated him for his heresy. He finally proved his ideas by drinking the bacteria and it caused him to have an ulcer. After that the previous consensus was abandoned. Need I say that this proves the previous consensus was dead wrong? It was not evidence that Marshall was incorrect.
That's three times now I have shown that the consensus of the majority was wrong. Dead wrong. That completely obliterates your argument for all I need to show you're wrong is give one example in which your ideas are shown to be false. I've given three times, and I can give many, many more times when the consensus was dead wrong.