Posted on 04/03/2009 8:22:15 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
I notice you changed my term 'whether' to 'why'. 'Why' is not the issue. 'Whether' is the dissent that is punished as you note below. I never said "all dissent over *whether* is suppressed". You misrepresent the issue and my statements multiple ways.
"But where is she now? Another institution in our Virginia higher ed system picked her up FULL TIME. So it's hard to spin her situation as one of suppressed speech. Another state school welcomed her on to the faculty."
It is? A professor who questions the 'whether' of evolution doesn't have her contract renewed and claims that it is because she questioned evolution and you don't think it's a problem because the university denied it? What did you think the university would say?
So, do you claim that every professor who questions the 'whether' of evolution and doesn't get their contract renewed will be picked up FULL TIME by another university as prestigious as George Mason University? That's the only way you could claim that free scientific speech isn't being suppressed here. Is that your claim?
You were the one who tried to equate the fallacy of affirming the consequent to scientific methodology by using not-Q. If you get a little lost, maybe your attempt is not reasonable.
"In the scientific method, if you don't find any counterexamples to Q (i.e., any not-Qs), then P is considered to be supported."
Well then, the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory (P) says that Invisible Pink Unicorns (Q) are predicted. The fact that Visible Pink Unicorns (not-Q) are not observed means that P is supported?
"If I haven't, though, it seems to me that you're saying the scientific method is founded on a formal logical fallacy. Which it may be, but it nevertheless works pretty darn well, so I'm not impressed with the power of formal logic in this arena."
No, it seems to me that you are saying that the scientific method is founded on a formal logical fallacy. Now, if you are satisfied with a belief that is based on logical fallacy that's fine, but I'm not impressed with the power of your logic.
"Also, I asked you in the other conversation how we would go about investigating something that can't be observed. If we can't generate predictions from unobserved phenomena, or if logic forbids us to draw any conclusions from either examples or the absence of counterexamples to our predictions, what are we left with?"
And I already answered this for you on the other thread. Why pretend that I did not?
Sounds to me like you have nothing to complain about.
______
Who’s complaining? Certainly not me. My reference to the old crevo debates (as you well know) was purely in the context of a reply to something specific from Cedric (ping).
LOL. Wanna bet?
My stupidity is best witnessed by trying to have a reasonable conversation with the unreasonable.
It is not irrelevant to the observations. It is completely relevant that the available data shows design and complexity that has never been observed to arise spontaneously. Evolution is not merely the observation, it is a particular theory that attempts to explain the observation. You are totally wrong here.
"Emergent systems are capable of generating such complexity (like "game of life" programs). One could argue that such "systems" are themselves the product of design (programmer / engineer), but that is irrelevant to the observation of emergence itself."
Ah yes. The appeal to ID systems as support for non-ID systems arising spontaneously. Classic evolutionary confusion. And it is not irrelevant to the observation, it is totally relevant to the observation. You are completely wrong again.
"Nope. I just accept the observations, not necessarily the conclusions of some theory that I'm confident is almost certainly wrong (just as I am confident that our current theories of gravity are almost certainly wrong)."
Nope. You just said that you ignore evidence of intelligent-design and define the observations as 'evolution'. You merely define terms such that your belief is a defined truth. That's meaningless.
"Gravity is not observable; merely its effects. In principle, it is possible that it might not even exist, and just be the result of an insanely low probability series of events. Evolution is similarly observable."
No, you are engaging in more fallacy. You merely define observations as 'evolution' and then claim that unobserved 'evolution' is similar. That's the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
"For example, anyone who looks at motor vehicles in the 20th century can see that frequency of specific automobile models changed over the years. The same observation holds for the fossil record. New species appear to show up and old ones appear to cease to exist."
Ah, another appeal to ID systems as support for non-ID systems. The evolutionary confusion is at least consistent. Haven't you ever considered why you must continually appeal to ID systems as support for 'evolution'?
"If they do that then they aren't performing science. Observations overrule hypothesis."
That's correct.
"If you can find an "anomalous find" that is incompatible with the hypothesis, it means that particular hypothesis is invalid. For example, if one were to find an undisturbed simian fossil in the middle of the Cambrian layer, it would pretty much disprove just about all the accepted evolutionary theories."
But then you go right back to your fallacies and claim they are valid. 'Anomalous finds' are made all the time. They are called 'reworked fossils'. You pretty much disproved your own theory even though you are so confused you think you support it.
"If by this you mean that when people realize their old idea isn't valid, they discard it and try to find a new idea that better explains the facts, then yeah. That's part of the process of science."
Problem is, people don't do that. They invent new reasons to keep the old idea. That's what happens with anomalous fossil finds. They invent 'reworking' to explain away the anomalous find and keep their old beliefs.
"In the case of gravity, we've done that several times. Although it was a good approximation, Newton's theory is wrong. Einstein's GR solution isn't compatible with quantum mechanics, even though it is probably the best theory we have now and works well at the macroscopic level. But just because we know the theory is wrong doesn't mean that our observation of gravity is wrong (even though, as admitted above, it could indeed be wrong)."
You keep wanting to equate evolution with gravity. That is known as the fallacy of equivocation. The fallacies just keep piling up, yet no one wants to abandon their belief in evolution. That's evidence that evolution is just another philosophy.
Not true. There is no one "particular theory" unless you specialize "evolution" to mean "Darwinian evolution". Just like with gravity, you are confusing the observation with the theory; they are not the same thing.
Ah yes. The appeal to ID systems as support for non-ID systems arising spontaneously. Classic evolutionary confusion. And it is not irrelevant to the observation, it is totally relevant to the observation. You are completely wrong again.
Once again, you are simply confused. There is no appeal to anything; the existence of elements suggestive of design is simply irrelevant to the observation of those elements. They only become relevant at the stage where a hypothesis is formed, and that stage is unrelated to observation. Your problem appears to be that you just don't understand the scientific method.
Nope. You just said that you ignore evidence of intelligent-design and define the observations as 'evolution'. You merely define terms such that your belief is a defined truth. That's meaningless.
Not at all. The evidence (or lack thereof) of "intelligent design" IS IRRELEVANT to the observations. You're certainly welcome to propose a hypothesis that explains the origins of those observations (anything from atheistic evolution to ID to "formed as-is last Tuesday"), but that step shouldn't affect the gathering of data. If it does, then what you're doing isn't science. Once again, you seem to be confusing evolution the observation with some particular theory or hypothesis that attempts to explain evolution.
No, you are engaging in more fallacy. You merely define observations as 'evolution'
Because giving something a name makes conversation possible, and that name ("evolution") is the word used to describe the phenomenon of things changing. Automobiles evolve, language evolves, and (from the observation of the fossil record) species evolve.
and then claim that unobserved 'evolution' is similar. That's the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
No, that's a strawman of your creation.
Ah, another appeal to ID systems as support for non-ID systems. The evolutionary confusion is at least consistent. Haven't you ever considered why you must continually appeal to ID systems as support for 'evolution'?
Because they are useful examples that demonstrate the observations. The same sort of variation in models can be seen in both the auto industry and the fossil record. But again you are confused. I've made no such claim that the system is "non-ID"; such a claim or refutation of that claim isn't relevant to the observations.
You keep wanting to equate evolution with gravity.
Because it is a useful analogy. From a scientific perspective, both gravity and evolution are terms applied to an observation in nature. Your confusion seems to be in that you can't distinguish between "gravity" (or evolution) and some particular "theory of gravity" (or particular theory of evolution).
No, I didn't. I was asking you if you thought the scientific method was an example of a logical fallacy.
Well then, the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory (P) says that Invisible Pink Unicorns (Q) are predicted. The fact that Visible Pink Unicorns (not-Q) are not observed means that P is supported?
No, that's a very badly structured expression of the method. It makes me think you either grossly misunderstand how the scientific method works, or you're not thinking about my questions.
It seems to me that you are saying that the scientific method is founded on a formal logical fallacy.
No, I'm asking you if you think it is. I notice that you work very hard to avoid answering that question.
And I already answered this for you on the other thread. Why pretend that I did not?
Because for some reason I never saw your answer. I apologize for that. I see now that you stated that science cannot investigate prehistory. If you seriously believe that, I think the rest of my questions are moot.
I was not party to her contract. For all I know, it could have been a temporary contract from the get-go. Notice I did not say who was right. All I said was that she was promptly hired by another school in the system, full-time not part-time, and quite possibly tenure track this time around.
I don’t know enough about her teaching to give you an opinion but I will tell you this much. A WaPo reporter spent a day in her class. IF his reporting is accurate (and I will not assume it is, given my experience with that paper), my position would be that any university would have been well within its rights to fire her. She was cheating those students by promoting her personal agenda, not teaching them what they need to know to pursue further studies.
Not true. There is only one 'particular theory' and that is evolution. Everything is filtered through naturalism and evolution is the only answer. Just like gravity, you are confusing the philosophy and the theory.
"Once again, you are simply confused. There is no appeal to anything; the existence of elements suggestive of design is simply irrelevant to the observation of those elements. They only become relevant at the stage where a hypothesis is formed, and that stage is unrelated to observation. Your problem appears to be that you just don't understand the scientific method."
Once again, you are simply confused. When you use ID systems as examples to support non-ID theories you are appealing to the concept. The existence of elements of design is totally relevant to the observation of that design. The philosophical foundation used to give meaning to the observation is naturalism and is based on the fallacy of equivocating the existence of natural law with philosophical naturalism. It appears that you just don't understand where philosophy impacts the development of unobservable theories.
"Not at all. The evidence (or lack thereof) of "intelligent design" IS IRRELEVANT to the observations. You're certainly welcome to propose a hypothesis that explains the origins of those observations (anything from atheistic evolution to ID to "formed as-is last Tuesday"), but that step shouldn't affect the gathering of data. If it does, then what you're doing isn't science. Once again, you seem to be confusing evolution the observation with some particular theory or hypothesis that attempts to explain evolution."
Once again, the evidence of design is TOTALLY RELEVANT to the observations and the development of a hypothesis. You're certainly welcome to propose a hypothesis that does not rely on philosophical naturalism, but that would be ID. You seem to be insisting that science be founded on the twin fallacies of affirming the consequent and equivocating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism for unobservable theories. That isn't science and once again, your problem appears to be an inability to understand when philosophy enters into your method, rendering it unscientific.
"Because giving something a name makes conversation possible, and that name ("evolution") is the word used to describe the phenomenon of things changing. Automobiles evolve, language evolves, and (from the observation of the fossil record) species evolve."
'Things changing' and macroevolution have nothing to do with each other without invoking several fallacies. Once again, you are unable to distinguish between ID and non-ID processes and insist on equating the two. They are not equivalent and your continued appeal to ID processes actually undermines your belief in non-ID macroevolution. You are simply unable to understand that.
"No, that's a strawman of your creation."
Not a strawman at all. It is one of the fundamental problems with unobservable theories like evolution. That you insist on ignoring it is clear, as most evolutionists do.
"Because they are useful examples that demonstrate the observations. The same sort of variation in models can be seen in both the auto industry and the fossil record. But again you are confused. I've made no such claim that the system is "non-ID"; such a claim or refutation of that claim isn't relevant to the observations."
Once again, you misunderstand the problem of using ID systems as appeals to support non-ID macroevolution. If you want to claim that macroevolution is ID, then you have the problem of disagreeing with the science that you attempt to use to support your claim. One or the other. Which is it?
"Because it is a useful analogy. From a scientific perspective, both gravity and evolution are terms applied to an observation in nature. Your confusion seems to be in that you can't distinguish between "gravity" (or evolution) and some particular "theory of gravity" (or particular theory of evolution)."
Once again, you simply don't understand the difference between an unfalsifiable theory and one that can be falsified. Theories of gravity and macroevolution are light-years apart. Macroevolution cannot be falsified because it is impossible to observe and test the unobservable assumed past. It is simply assumed and extrapolated backward. That's not science, that's philosophy.
Yes you did. You have been using logical fallacies as support for macroevolution the entire time. Now you try to equate the scientific method with macroevolution. The scientific method doesn't support marcroevolution without invoking several logical fallacies. You insist on doing that.
"No, that's a very badly structured expression of the method. It makes me think you either grossly misunderstand how the scientific method works, or you're not thinking about my questions."
Nope, that's the explanation of your argument of unobservable not-Q supporting unobservable P. Your example had nothing to do with the scientific method as I demonstrated with that example. You either grossly misunderstand how the scientific method works or you're not thinking about my questions.
"No, I'm asking you if you think it is. I notice that you work very hard to avoid answering that question."
Again, you cannot assume a logical fallacy 'a priori' and then ask a question based on that assumption. That is simply a lack of critical-thinking skills.
"Because for some reason I never saw your answer. I apologize for that. I see now that you stated that science cannot investigate prehistory. If you seriously believe that, I think the rest of my questions are moot."
If you seriously believe that the scientific method can 'investigate' prehistory without invoking fallacies and 'a priori' assumptions, then it is clear that you do not understand the difference between the scientific method and philosophy. Assuming philosophical positions and fallacies 'a priori' and extrapolating observations backward has nothing at all to do with the scientific method. That is pure philosophy.
So, your argument from ignorance falls apart, does it? Not surprising since you were trying to support a concept (no retribution) that didn't fit the facts. Going from George Mason University to 'another school' certainly is a step down now isn't it? Full-time or not. But you don't want to see retribution so you ignore anything that doesn't support your belief. That's clear.
"I don’t know enough about her teaching to give you an opinion but I will tell you this much. A WaPo reporter spent a day in her class. IF his reporting is accurate (and I will not assume it is, given my experience with that paper), my position would be that any university would have been well within its rights to fire her. She was cheating those students by promoting her personal agenda, not teaching them what they need to know to pursue further studies."
Ah, now any teacher who disagrees with the evolutionist party line is 'cheating' students. Well, well. How quickly we run from the intellectual right to go where we think the evidence leads when it doesn't agree with the philosophical beliefs of the administration. And such a fine job justifying it too. You should be proud.
I asked a very simple question: do you believe the scientific method is based on a logical fallacy? There is no assumption in that question. You have dodged it for several days now.
I went through the scientific method step-by-step, matched the steps up with statements you had made, and invited you to explain where I either misunderstood your statements or matched them up wrong. You dodged that question too.
You apparently have a very limited range of responses available and intend to avoid any attempt to get you to consider their implications. Fine. Go on parroting your "logical fallacy...logical fallacy...awwwk!" replies. If you ever feel up to addressing why using the scientific method to investigate the past requires philosophical assumptions, I encourage you to give it a shot.
You don't understand the difference between the scientific method and philosophical naturalism. If you did, you wouldn't even ask the question. You have dodged that point for several days now.
"I went through the scientific method step-by-step, matched the steps up with statements you had made, and invited you to explain where I either misunderstood your statements or matched them up wrong. You dodged that question too."
And I explained where you invoke philosophical naturalism and logical fallacies. You simply refused to acknowledge that you do that. You dodged that point too.
"You apparently have a very limited range of responses available and intend to avoid any attempt to get you to consider their implications. Fine. Go on parroting your "logical fallacy...logical fallacy...awwwk!" replies."
You apparently have a very limited range of thoughts that you can understand and intend to avoid any attempt to get you to consider their implications. Fine. Go on parroting your "scientific method....scientific method...awwwk!" replies when it is clear that macroevolution is based on philosophical naturalism.
"If you ever feel up to addressing why using the scientific method to investigate the past requires philosophical assumptions, I encourage you to give it a shot."
If you ever feel up to addressing why assuming philosophical naturalism and invoking the fallacy of affirming the consequent invalidates your use of the term 'investigate' when *speculate* is the correct term, I encourage you to give it a shot.
So now the issue is the perceived prestige of her station? I thought it was her claim that her speech is being suppressed, which obviously it isn't if she remains employable in the VA university system.
Universities use temporary part-time contracts all the time. It's hardly unusual for such contracts not to be renewed. Doesn't mean "retribution" has anything to do with it. One might reasonably infer that were retribution involved, GMU would have given her a bad reference making it difficult for her to gain employment at another school in the system.
We'll have to agree to disagree on how much prestige attaches to GMU. I think it's a fine school, as are most in the VA higher ed system. But it hardly has the prestige of UVA.
Ah, now any teacher who disagrees with the evolutionist party line is 'cheating' students.
Didnt say that. I said her personal agenda was obvious if the reporting was accurate.
Obviously you reject any evidence that doesn't meet your definition. She could have gone from teaching at George Mason University to janitor at a community college and you wouldn't see any free speech issues. Of course, you support the evolutionist position so we shouldn't be surprised at your lack of critical-thinking skills.
"Universities use temporary part-time contracts all the time. It's hardly unusual for such contracts not to be renewed. Doesn't mean "retribution" has anything to do with it. One might reasonably infer that were retribution involved, GMU would have given her a bad reference making it difficult for her to gain employment at another school in the system."
Keep working on the justification there. More justification is apparently needed and you provide another boatload.
"We'll have to agree to disagree on how much prestige attaches to GMU. I think it's a fine school, as are most in the VA higher ed system. But it hardly has the prestige of UVA."
Got enough justification for you position yet, or do you need to do more work?
"Didnt say that. I said her personal agenda was obvious if the reporting was accurate."
It's clear that you exaggerate the situation and claim that she's 'cheating students' because you agree with the university's position and disagree with her right to teach what she believes. Now apply that same criteria to every evolutionist professor who teaches their personal agenda. Oh, but I forget. It's only a personal agenda if you disagree with it. If you agree, then it's 'scientific'.
If there was only one particular theory, then we wouldn't bother discussing this in the first place.
Just like gravity, you are confusing the philosophy and the theory.
Not at all. "The philosophy and the theory" are more or less the same thing; I'm talking about neither; the observation is NOT the theory (or hypothesis or philosophy). Once again, you are simply confused about the process of science and trying to treat the separate steps (observation and hypothesis) as a monolithic entity.
When you use ID systems as examples to support non-ID theories you are appealing to the concept.
This is just another example of how you are confused. I'm doing no such thing. I've offered no theory at all; you are the one that keeps trying to change the subject to theories. Once again, you are confusing the observation with the theory that explains that hypothesis, and pretending that just because the hypothesis is flawed that it invalidates the observations.
The existence of elements of design is totally relevant to the observation of that design.
No. Letting the presumption of design (or the lack thereof) affect your perception of observations invalidates your observations. You are biased in favor of a pre-determined outcome and are not performing legitimate science when you do that.
Once again, the evidence of design is TOTALLY RELEVANT to the observations and the development of a hypothesis.
Your mistake is in the "and". It could be relevant to the development of a hypothesis, but that is not what is being discussed (except for you, who can't distinguish that observation and development of a hypothesis to explain that observation are separate, independent steps in the scientific process.)
Not a strawman at all. It is one of the fundamental problems with unobservable theories like evolution.
You are the only one talking about theories. Your problem is so basic that you aren't even applying the correct words to concepts. You ARE creating a strawman, because you are trying to combine evolution the observation (the only thing initially being discussed) with some particular evolutionary theory with which you don't agree, attack the latter, and then pretending that it invalidates the unconnected former.
And you continue to bring up "ID", not seeming to realize that it too is an evolutionary hypothesis. If evolution is invalid (and you seem to be claiming that it is), then by definition a hypothesis attempting to explain that observation is also invalid. That means ID must be, by your own position, a false hypothesis.
Once again, you simply don't understand the difference between an unfalsifiable theory and one that can be falsified.
Once again, you don't understand the difference between an observation and a theory. And even if you did, you would be mistaken in that statement because I've already offered an example of a way some evolutionary theories could be invalidated. Clearly you aren't even bothering to understand the words of my responses, if you are even bothering to actually read them.
Yes we would.
"Not at all. "The philosophy and the theory" are more or less the same thing; I'm talking about neither; the observation is NOT the theory (or hypothesis or philosophy). Once again, you are simply confused about the process of science and trying to treat the separate steps (observation and hypothesis) as a monolithic entity."
No, the philosophy supports the theory. Without the philosophy, the theory would not exist. The observation is NOT the theory and the philosophy is NOT the theory. Once again, you are simply confused about the process of science and are trying to treat the philosophy and the theory as a monolithic entity.
"This is just another example of how you are confused. I'm doing no such thing. I've offered no theory at all; you are the one that keeps trying to change the subject to theories. Once again, you are confusing the observation with the theory that explains that hypothesis, and pretending that just because the hypothesis is flawed that it invalidates the observations."
This is just another example of how you are confused. I'm doing no such thing. My point was about you confusing ID examples as support for the concept of non-ID systems spontaneously generating themselves. Once again, you are confusing the philosophy and the theory because you believe they are 'more or less the same thing'.
"No. Letting the presumption of design (or the lack thereof) affect your perception of observations invalidates your observations. You are biased in favor of a pre-determined outcome and are not performing legitimate science when you do that."
No. Ignoring the evidence of design affects your perception of observations and invalidates your theory. You are biased in favor of a pre-determined outcome and are not performing legitimate science when you do that.
"Your mistake is in the "and". It could be relevant to the development of a hypothesis, but that is not what is being discussed (except for you, who can't distinguish that observation and development of a hypothesis to explain that observation are separate, independent steps in the scientific process.)"
You mistake is in ignoring the "and". As you admit, it could be relevant to the development of a hypothesis, but you insist on ignoring it in favor of your philosophical belief in naturalism. You simply must continually misrepresent what I'm telling you in order to justify your faith in philosophical naturalism. Science is not served by blind faith in philosophical naturalism. That may be what 'everybody' does, but favoring one philosophy over another is a philosophical choice and a fallacy, not a scientific requirement.
"You are the only one talking about theories. Your problem is so basic that you aren't even applying the correct words to concepts. You ARE creating a strawman, because you are trying to combine evolution the observation (the only thing initially being discussed) with some particular evolutionary theory with which you don't agree, attack the latter, and then pretending that it invalidates the unconnected former."
You are the one creating a strawman. You problem is so basic that you aren't even discussing the correct issue, which is the fundamental assumption of philosophical naturalism, a fallacy in itself. I mentioned no particular evolutionary theory and your claim that I did shows what lengths you will go through to misrepresent the issue. You continually commit the fallacy of equivocation in order to justify your belief and I simply continue to point that out.
"And you continue to bring up "ID", not seeming to realize that it too is an evolutionary hypothesis. If evolution is invalid (and you seem to be claiming that it is), then by definition a hypothesis attempting to explain that observation is also invalid, that means ID must be, by your own position, a false hypothesis."
And you continue to use ID examples as thought they are support for assumed non-ID processes. If you continually appeal to ID processes as support for the spontaneous generation of non-ID systems, that means that macroevolution must be, by your own position, a false theory.
"Once again, you don't understand the difference between an observation and a theory. And even if you did, you would be mistaken in that statement because I've already offered an example of a way some evolutionary theories could be invalidated. Clearly you aren't even bothering to understand the words of my responses, if you are even bothering to actually read them."
Once again, you misrepresent what I am saying by committing the fallacy of equivocation 'a priori' and insisting that non sequitur be the basis for the discussion. Clearly you aren't even bothering to understand the words of my responses, if you are even bothering to actually read them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.