[dktorode]

*DROOOOOOOOLS*

[Gem Windcaster]

Cause, on Mar 27 2009, 07:03 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Mar 27 2009, 04:07 AM, said:

Cold Iron, on Mar 27 2009, 12:47 AM, said:

This is why i thought you hadn't read the thread. I was sure you would want to talk about this

Wanting to talk about it, and being able to are two different things. First off we would need a communicative contract of sorts. Right now such a thing doesn't exist. As much as I love poking people with sticks...I'm not sure this is the right time or place to fight this fight. One thing I do wish to eliminate though, is the "you don't agree with me, so you must be stupid" argument. The thing you can do with science, supposed to do, is criticize it. Because if science is correct about something, it will hold. And you can't criticize science with only things part of it's system, you need something outside of it. As I said before, science is not system outside of it's own context. Same goes for any other human ideological system. Science does not exist outside of the human mind. Therefore should one not only doubt it, but try to destroy it, unless you want a disaster. To be able to do that, one need to start doubting one's own mind.

As I said, wanting to talk about it is not the same as being able to.

Arguing that you doubt science while talking to us on a computer across the internet is to my mind absurb. We know you doubt evolution and in twenty threads about it you have never put forth any reason. Also again I will ask, why do you feel the need to complicate every argument the way you do. Its really not tha difficult to argue wheather science unfairly or fairly is used to attack religeon. We dont have to doubt our own minds

Why Cause, thankyou for proving my point.

First off, you read too much into the fact that I used the word doubt. It doesn't mean I doubt all science. I use the word in the sense that you shouldn't agree with all science unquestionably. Just that.
Why? Because science resides as a construct within human minds - and we don't always make perfect constructs.

That you say you don't need to doubt your own minds are non historical and goes against what science is - science is all about doubt. Making experiments is all about not taking appearances for granted. When we look at an appearance, we don't say "What does my mind say", instead we say "where does the experiment lead us". That is fundamentally about doubting your mind.

I'm not saying that science is used to attack anything - because it's lousy at it - but believing that it is used that way proves that CI is right. Secondly I find it interesting that set "fairly use" and "unfairly use" against each other. Does that mean that you actually think it's a good thing to use science like this?

Also I find it interesting that you bring up my part in the evolution threads. You are wrong that I need to come up with a reason for doubting the theory of evolution - I certainly don't - it's the theory that needs to be proven, not the other way around. The only reason I would need is asking myself if it add up, and I don't think it do. Also despite the many threads you haven't been able to give me a single reason to agree with the theory, and then you project that failure on me? Seriously, that's not very scientific of you.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 27 March 2009 - 12:22 PM

[Use Of Weapons]

Unfortunately for GW's argument, in order to be able to criticise science (whichever definition we happen to be using in this thread, which is still not entirely clear), one needs to demonstrate that one is capable both of understanding the arguments put forward, and of constructing relevant rebuttals based on sound understanding. Neither of which necessary criteria are fulfilled as far as I can see.

It is impossible to make coherent points about science to a layman who possesses none of the specialised technical vocabulary, in paricular the restricted definitions and adapted standard English terms used in specialised contexts, with which such points are generally made. Such points are always misconstrued, dictionary definitions are brought forward as if they are relevant over and above the scietific definitions which are in operation in the context, and focus is attached to minutiae of argument rather than to the main thrust.

Thus, arguing with non-scientists about the value, operation, history, purpose, and beauty, of science, is often a thankless and unfortunately unproductive task. And yet, scientists persist, because their goal is the pursuit of knowledge, and its dissemination as far as possible.

I would recommend the book _Bad Science_ by Ben Goldacre to anyone and everyone in this thread. It makes the point much more clearly and coherently than I could ever hope to.

[Illuyankas]

The pseudoentity created to represent the facets of scientific advancement and knowledge that lead to so much cool stuff, personally and possibly negatively labelled 'science'.

I still love it.

[Gem Windcaster]

jitsukerr, on Mar 27 2009, 03:27 PM, said:

Unfortunately for GW's argument, in order to be able to criticise science (whichever definition we happen to be using in this thread, which is still not entirely clear), one needs to demonstrate that one is capable both of understanding the arguments put forward, and of constructing relevant rebuttals based on sound understanding. Neither of which necessary criteria are fulfilled as far as I can see.

It seems to me that in your world agreeing and understanding is the same thing. Why don't you show some balls and be more specific about what it is you fear I don't understand, and so give me a chance to relieve you of your fears. However I don't expect you to, since all I've ever got reason wise has mostly been the old "you're not agreeing, therefore you're stupid" argument. Sadly there's not much 'sound' anything going on around here.

jitsukerr, on Mar 27 2009, 03:27 PM, said:

It is impossible to make coherent points about science to a layman who possesses none of the specialised technical vocabulary, in paricular the restricted definitions and adapted standard English terms used in specialised contexts, with which such points are generally made. Such points are always misconstrued, dictionary definitions are brought forward as if they are relevant over and above the scietific definitions which are in operation in the context, and focus is attached to minutiae of argument rather than to the main thrust.

Bullshit! Don't blame the layman for not 'understanding' when you so obviosuly either can't express your own knowledge or actually have nothing to give. Show us what you know instead of throwing pretty packaged insults around.
I do believe you are aright about people using the dictionary though. Although you're being contradictory to your own point.

jitsukerr, on Mar 27 2009, 03:27 PM, said:

Thus, arguing with non-scientists about the value, operation, history, purpose, and beauty, of science, is often a thankless and unfortunately unproductive task. And yet, scientists persist, because their goal is the pursuit of knowledge, and its dissemination as far as possible.

That is such an elitist and laughable statement, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be impressed by your arrogance or just smile.

I've said again and again that I love science - but it is continually dragged into the dirt by people that want to diminish it and keep it for themselves. My own goal is definitely knowledge and truth. Also I think the concept of 'scientists' vs 'non-scientists' is an interesting one. We're all thinking humans first and foremost. Those with facts can share those facts. It's not easy, but then I don't think it should be - scientists are not all knowing masters that we all should bow down to.

jitsukerr, on Mar 27 2009, 03:27 PM, said:

I would recommend the book _Bad Science_ by Ben Goldacre to anyone and everyone in this thread. It makes the point much more clearly and coherently than I could ever hope to.

If you actually have read that book, then you know what I am talking about - maybe you should look past your own assumptions of me, and see what I am trying to say, albeit without a single 'thus'?


Edit: added some stuff.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 27 March 2009 - 06:44 PM

[Urb]

Dictionary.com said:

science   /ˈsaɪəns/ [sahy-uhns]
–noun

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

So... everyone is right!
Seeing as how it's such a general term.

I bet it can be even more things in different languages as well.

[Gem Windcaster]

V-rep to you, Urb.

[Mushroom]

I don't even know why this is being debated.

I mean there are certain fields some people may or may not consider 'science'.. phsycology for instance..


But debating what science is seems kinda silly to me.

[Cold Iron]

Now this is a thread.

I'm gunna wait for sm to get back.

In the mean time, I'll be laughing at the thought of dk fapping at lamps.

[Ain't_It_Just_]

Science...is like an ever-evolving lifeform wearing a blindfold and auto-firing cannons.

[Shinrei]

I think this is a super dooper goofy thread, but it's becoming more entertaining as we go along.

[Morgoth]

the reason this doesn't work very well is the same as why I can never debate such things as prison sentences for rape say with someone who's not got a solid background in law.

[Gem Windcaster]

Morgoth, on Mar 28 2009, 04:22 PM, said:

the reason this doesn't work very well is the same as why I can never debate such things as prison sentences for rape say with someone who's not got a solid background in law.

Well, technically you can, you just don't want to, or don't like to. For the same reason I find it hard to discuss the Bible with someone that has no basic understanding of theology. Doesn't mean I won't, or can't, I just find it frustrating, depending on the circumstance. That doesn't mean I think they're stupid if they don't agree, I freely admit that I get frustrated by the difference in views. I'm not more than human. Sometimes it works even though we have different views, sometimes it doesn't. The why is a whole science, it seems.

[Cause]

Gem to be blunt. what we have is not a difference of opinion. You say the onus is on me to prove evolution. You are mistaken. It has been proven. The onus is on you to disprove it. But you cant. Why? Because you dont even understand it in the fist place. People can have difference of opinions on whether the colour blue is pretty, they cant disagree that it has a wavelength of 400nm.

And to answer your previous statement. No I dont believe your stupid for not believeing in evolution. I dont feel elitist because I do. I do feel your delluding yourself if you wont admit your prejudice against the theory is coloured by your religious beliefs.

[Gem Windcaster]

Is this where we start to say "Yes" "No" "Yes" "No" to each other? Dude, I don't have to disprove something I don't think is proved in the first place. The ability to prove or disprove the entire theory of evolution is equally impossible, which has been part of my point this whole time. You can't prove it, and you can't disprove it. So it stays a theory, and you can only prove or disprove things that are visible to our eyes today, which isn't much.

[Cold Iron]

Gem you have been given proof of evolution before, time and again. When asked, you have said that life cannot come from a rock. You were accused of confusing evolution with abiogensis. Please take this on board. There is so much proof for evolution saying it can't be proven is just proof that you're not listening and you're not worth arguing with.

Cause, how did that thing go with your rabii friend? I never heard how that ended.

[Gem Windcaster]

Evolution isn't evolution. Evolution we can prove today doesn't prove the theory of evolution. 'Evolution' within species are 'proven' (technically you can't logically prove anything, just disprove, but for the sake of argument we can say 'proven'), but evolution from one species to another isn't even close to being proven. It can't be disproved either, which means the theory of evolution is meaningless as a theory.

Don't bring up the life from a rock statement - I was being argumentative and trying to make a point - and the big picture tells me I'm not that far off, technicalities aside. Although admittedly, I don't actually believe many people would agree (but the motive for not agreeing is interesting). I also went much further than that, I remember forcing people to define what the theory is. But what is it in reality? The use of definitions as argument or excuse, whatever you call it, is extremely interesting, ideologically. So yeah, I'm not playing nice, I am actually playing tricks, sort of. But do you blame me, with the walls of stubbornness I am faced with?

You must realize something. I look at the big picture. I can drag whatever other theory I want in to the picture, because ideas are not compartmentalized in the human minds as scientific theories are. Our minds are a mishmash of ideas and bits of knowledge. We filter out lots and lots, just to make the craziness that is the world makes sense.

So let me be clear. Science is governed by logic. Logic says you can't prove anything, just disprove. You can only falsify. Now, I realize my praxis can be a bit more stern than most scientists even. But that is neither here nor there. You could at least agree with the sentiment. If not, that's not my problem.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 30 March 2009 - 12:34 AM

[Cold Iron]

Gem Windcaster, on Mar 30 2009, 11:34 AM, said:

Evolution isn't evolution.

Well that would explain the confusion.

Gem Windcaster, on Mar 30 2009, 11:34 AM, said:

Evolution we can prove today doesn't prove the theory of evolution. 'Evolution' within species are 'proven' (technically you can't logically prove anything, just disprove, but for the sake of argument we can say 'proven'), but evolution from one species to another isn't even close to being proven. It can't be disproved either, which means the theory of evolution is meaningless as a theory.

Incorrect. Natural evolution of sunflower species Helianthus anomalus, H. deserticola and H. paradoxus, has been artificially replicated by hybridising two other species of sunflower, H. annuus and H. petiolaris (link). Cross species mating is not thought to be the most common vehicle for evolutionary change but it's potential for rapid change makes it useful for showing evolution in action over a short space of time.

The rest of your post is rubbish that can't even be responded to. Logic says we can't prove anything? Prove it.

[Cause]

Dont bother CI, She and others wont be happy until they see a sunflower turn into a bat. They have no concept of what a species is and throw that example around evrytime. What seperates a fish, a penguin and a bird. Nothing. Only adaptions of the same organs and limbs they all share. Why they think it should be so remarkable I dont know.

More about the rabbi incident later

[Gem Windcaster]

Cause, on Mar 30 2009, 08:03 AM, said:

Dont bother CI, She and others wont be happy until they see a sunflower turn into a bat. They have no concept of what a species is and throw that example around evrytime. What seperates a fish, a penguin and a bird. Nothing. Only adaptions of the same organs and limbs they all share. Why they think it should be so remarkable I dont know.

Nice example. If they're basically the same thing, that's not much of an evolution in the first place.

@ CI: your example of the sunflower only points to what I already agrees with, that nature is flexible, and that it sometimes mutates to keep alive. Chernobyl wildlife is a good example. Also it seems life that is 'smaller' mutates more easily - I'd guess it's because the complexity of the genes, but here I am floating into waters I know nothing about.
Again, it's a good example, because of close similarities between...flowers.

Look guys, I am well aware that mutations exist, that life is flexible and that cross mating occurs. But those are rather small changes, most of which often dwindle away because they were bad ideas.

My point is that these mechanisms doesn't point to anything but what they themselves are. Evolution can sometimes be seen as this mystical force that drives life. It's an interpretation and not a very scientific one. How do we know life isn't degenerating instead of developing? The witnessed mechanisms can just as easily be interpreted as having a negative effect. Since we haven't actually invented the time machine, we can't know for sure. We just know there are changes. And we can't know if those changes are for the better or for worse, in the long run. The fact that the theory of evolution is called 'of evolution' is interesting because it puts an ideological spin on the 'objective' science. If it was called 'the theory of change', it wouldn't really have the same ring to it.

I'm surprised you guys don't see this. It's one thing to agree with an ideology, but to be completely unaware that is what one is doing? Surprising.

And CI, just read up on the people that created today's logic, Gottlob Frege and Wittgenstein, and you'll see what I mean.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 30 March 2009 - 01:27 PM