A debate about debates
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 22:13
VIEWED: 12983
PAGE 11 of 17
Quote:
That claimed bio major
Kaneman is as much a bio major as he as a tunisian black woman
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTTS
I think you missed the rest of the posts.
No ones saying you can't spout that religious belief. We're saying it's fraudulent to create a scientific debate which has lots of wishful thinking and not a signal shred of evidence and call it science. Call it religion.
Free speech does *not* extend to malicious slander.
If you want to teach a class in a public school on history and in it you say that the French ran Auschwitz and not the Germans, you're not covered under your right of free speech to do so. If this level of speech were permissable, I'm certain that society would utterly collapse, not that it hasn't already.
Furthermore, I can't say that I'm a PhD in nanotechnology, because I'm not. If I were allowed to say that in the byline of stuff I wrote, then people would take my position more seriously, hey, why doesn't everyone do that? Screw this educational thing! Let's all do that!
I'm president of the united states. Can I issue orders now? A US soldier wants to tell his girlfriend in Pyongyang our nuclear missile launch codes, there's free speech, he can do that right?
His sister is on the phone to Osama bin Laden telling him how to make a virus that will wipe out humanity.
I hope this illustrates the point. Kaneman is entitled to his opnion that the Earth grew out of his nosehair, but he is not allowed to teach it as science. If he is allowed to, then society will surely collapse.
This debate is not what this debate is about, and until it is, it cannot continue in the way in which is continuing, because that is accepting that facts can be compromised with non-facts to create half-truths which will then replace truths, and we will all accept it because it is a compromise, and any time someone wants to challenge accepted fact, they can do so without evidence or proof.
What essentially you are creating is democracy of thought, which has always been sort of widely viewed as a disasterous idea. If the majority of people think blacks are inferior, then damn the evidence, blacks are inferior. Once that's established, they deserve to be slaves if the majority think so.
We don't have, and never have had, and shouldn't have, the freedom to have all debates put on an equal footing and weighed equally regardless of any extenuating circumstance or evidence. If we did, any cockcamamie idea would challenge any fact all of the time. Go back to my "let's rape some of the women" compromise. This is an unworkable idea.
This is why science is science, because its debates have rules, and one of those rules is that positions are based on groundwork which is somewhere based on evidence. Even in the abstract theory of relativity, ultimately it came back to the observational evidence of star movements. Eisteins thoery explained those movements better than the accepted Newtonian theory, and the debate was one. Quantum mechanics explained the observer movement of molecules better than Eistein, and the debate was, again, on. But Joe Schmoes theory that planetary motion was directed by a hyper-plasmic signal which issued from his own brain was not debated, and never got accepted nationally to be taught in public schools with equal weight along side the heliocentric 'theory' of planetary motion.
So, sure, he can voice his opinions, on this board, but we can't allow debates without evidence to happen in the scientific community or we end up with democracy of thought, or, in other words, mob rule.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AH!! THE SIGN!! It says... no leprechauns? Away with Rumplestiltskin? Don't.... er... I see a roasted turkey... No turkeys and trolls?
OOOOOOH! I GET IT!
Don't feed the trolls! 
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well put.
So, sure, he can voice his opinions, on this board, but we can't allow debates without evidence to happen in the scientific community or we end up with democracy of thought, or, in other words, mob rule.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank you DT.
I was going to post but what you said was much better than anything I might have come up with.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:Quote:
there's no major collision of realities here if you don't try so hard to make one. After all, couldn't God have created man through evolution? Why would he be in such a hurry? Can't he sit it out a few billion years as the planet forms? Isn't there something more beautiful about that picture?
look, its possible for us to fit evolution within a creationist worldview... but if you ask the athiests around here, an evolutionary worldview has no room for an intelligent creator
I should have responded a long time ago, and maybe you'll miss it because I waited so long. Sorry about that.
Your statement about athiests who post here is what you believe I'm sure, but I don't think the facts back you up, any more than if I were to say 'people of religion on this site hate science'.
I am an atheist myself,or when I want to sound more scientific I say I'm an agnostic, because I can't disprove the existence of a God. I believe there's no God, but this belief is not a strong or unbending one. The prospect of a belief system as bleak as atheism is hardly ideal. if there was any evidence I could look to to convince me of the possibility of something supernatural, I think I might just latch onto it.
As to faith's connection to science, there are really two options here. Either faith has no bearing on empirical evidence whatsoever - that is, it deals with a higher plain of thought or knowledge, in which case, faith has no business dictating scientific understanding because the two realms are absolutely distinct. There should be no religeous intervention into science because no matter what science proves, science is some illusion dealing with only the profane and not the sacred, and faith is the real truth that deals with the sacred but not the profane,
or else,
we glimpse the sacred through the profane, in which case our understanding of our faith should be led by our empirical understanding of the world. When our empirical understanding debunks one literal aspect of our faith, our faith should adjust accordingly. You do not throw out the evidence that doesn't support the hypothesis, you throw out the hypothesis, or else, tweak it.
Either Way, science should not be molested or manipulated by religious belief, either because it is not related, or because it is the very method through which we can get closer to seeing God.
Which of the two do you subscribe to? or if there's a third option, I'd be interested.NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Sig, allow me to think about that for a bit.
Why start now?
From what I've read, you haven't done any thinking so far in this thread; it'd be a wonder of wonders (and would probably make your brain happy) to get those neurons firing for once.
...well it's true.
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
HeeHee
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You have got to be kidding. Prions. Viruses. They're just crystals, like many other chemicals - self-assembling.
Self-assembling is a far cry from reproduction. And I'm the idiot.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Prions and Viruses reproduce, despite merely being self-assembling, you just debunked you're own argument.
Originally posted by kaneman:Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You have got to be kidding. Prions. Viruses. They're just crystals, like many other chemicals - self-assembling.
Self-assembling is a far cry from reproduction. And I'm the idiot.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME