Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

About the Intelligent Design Stuff

Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 8:39:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I came here to see if there were any topics about science.

Instead I saw a ton of topics about intelligent design and a philosophy question (it was a pretty good philosophical question though).

I'm not saying that universe origin theories shouldn't be debated at all. I'm not telling anyone to get out. I'm asking that you guys actually talk about scientific topics. Science and religion are not limited strictly to an apologetic debate. Scientific thought isn't just about disproving intelligent design and religion isn't about disproving evolution.

Try to get your heads on straight around here and maybe marvel at some legitimately cool-to-talk-about scientific topics in areas like biology, chemistry, physics, theoretical physics. Stuff like that.

There is literally no need for ten different topics about intelligent design.

To start you off, talk about this video: https://www.youtube.com...

And if you guys get into an evolution debate because he mentions evolution, then you have completely missed the point of the video and this post.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 10:59:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 8:39:42 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
I came here to see if there were any topics about science.

Instead I saw a ton of topics about intelligent design and a philosophy question (it was a pretty good philosophical question though).

I'm not saying that universe origin theories shouldn't be debated at all. I'm not telling anyone to get out. I'm asking that you guys actually talk about scientific topics. Science and religion are not limited strictly to an apologetic debate. Scientific thought isn't just about disproving intelligent design and religion isn't about disproving evolution.

Try to get your heads on straight around here and maybe marvel at some legitimately cool-to-talk-about scientific topics in areas like biology, chemistry, physics, theoretical physics. Stuff like that.

There is literally no need for ten different topics about intelligent design.

To start you off, talk about this video: https://www.youtube.com...

And if you guys get into an evolution debate because he mentions evolution, then you have completely missed the point of the video and this post.

You're right, of course, but it just doesn't seem like many poeple on this site are interested in actual science. You don't see many science debates either.
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 11:29:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yes, this is why I jokingly refer to this site as: www.debatewhethergodexists.org

There once was a misguided soul who thought he had created a contraption with magnets that put out more energy than was put in. He even provided a YouTube demo of it for examination.

A few of us pointed out where he was wrong, but he still thought he was onto something groundbreaking. See, intense stubbornness is not unique to the religion and politics forums!
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 2:22:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 8:39:42 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
I came here to see if there were any topics about science.

Instead I saw a ton of topics about intelligent design and a philosophy question (it was a pretty good philosophical question though).

I'm not saying that universe origin theories shouldn't be debated at all. I'm not telling anyone to get out. I'm asking that you guys actually talk about scientific topics. Science and religion are not limited strictly to an apologetic debate. Scientific thought isn't just about disproving intelligent design and religion isn't about disproving evolution.

Try to get your heads on straight around here and maybe marvel at some legitimately cool-to-talk-about scientific topics in areas like biology, chemistry, physics, theoretical physics. Stuff like that.

There is literally no need for ten different topics about intelligent design.

To start you off, talk about this video: https://www.youtube.com...

And if you guys get into an evolution debate because he mentions evolution, then you have completely missed the point of the video and this post.

The ID topics are indeed getting pretty nauseous. Intelligent design is about 1% of my interest in science... Yet they are like 8/10 topics .... Wtf.

I need to start posting stuff here again...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 3:42:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 8:39:42 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
There is literally no need for ten different topics about intelligent design.

Unfortunately, most ID topics in this forum and in religion are troll threads, and aren't about furthering science. I refer you to the Wedge Document (1998), the fundamentalist propaganda strategy underpinning ID debates for the last 16 years: (http://ncse.com...), and explaining why these debates seem to have appeared suddenly, without any scientific discovery to prompt them, without any new results supporting them, and mainly in the US.

I excerpt below:

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.

Governing Goals
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Essentially, ID is a manufactured controversy not meant to advance or challenge science but to impress people who already fear science or don't understand it. It's based on three flawed lines of argument: false duality (possibly not spontaneous, therefore must be designed), appeal to the supernatural (doesn't understand it, therefore God) and false accusations of methodological error (various, but rebutted scientifically many times over.)

It has been debunked repeatedly both scientifically and in public policy, but reappears here as troll threads. Although nobody other than Creationists call it science, you can't ask members to be reasonable and stop posting it because the members posting aren't doing so in good faith in the first place.

The threads are troll threads because if you engage them you give the wild assertions legitimacy; if you don't they claim nobody can refute it; and if you debunk it technically they get evasive and throw up gabble and wild assertions, knowing most people don't understand any of it.

This is done knowingly because there's never a peer-reviewed, credible scientific paper cited on the ID side.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 6:34:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 3:42:07 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/3/2015 8:39:42 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
There is literally no need for ten different topics about intelligent design.

Unfortunately, most ID topics in this forum and in religion are troll threads, and aren't about furthering science. I refer you to the Wedge Document (1998), the fundamentalist propaganda strategy underpinning ID debates for the last 16 years: (http://ncse.com...), and explaining why these debates seem to have appeared suddenly, without any scientific discovery to prompt them, without any new results supporting them, and mainly in the US.

I excerpt below:

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.

Governing Goals
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Essentially, ID is a manufactured controversy not meant to advance or challenge science but to impress people who already fear science or don't understand it. It's based on three flawed lines of argument: false duality (possibly not spontaneous, therefore must be designed), appeal to the supernatural (doesn't understand it, therefore God) and false accusations of methodological error (various, but rebutted scientifically many times over.)

It has been debunked repeatedly both scientifically and in public policy, but reappears here as troll threads. Although nobody other than Creationists call it science, you can't ask members to be reasonable and stop posting it because the members posting aren't doing so in good faith in the first place.

The threads are troll threads because if you engage them you give the wild assertions legitimacy; if you don't they claim nobody can refute it; and if you debunk it technically they get evasive and throw up gabble and wild assertions, knowing most people don't understand any of it.

This is done knowingly because there's never a peer-reviewed, credible scientific paper cited on the ID side.

Keep those kind of posts out of this thread. The point of this thread is to point out that science has cool subjects and we need to talk about those, because scientific thought is stunted by people arguing about ID. It's not even ID thag stunts scientific thought, it's the fact that you put so much energy and thought into debunking it. As long as you keep making debates out of every post that mention ID, you are the problem.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 7:30:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 2:22:03 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/3/2015 8:39:42 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
I came here to see if there were any topics about science.

Instead I saw a ton of topics about intelligent design and a philosophy question (it was a pretty good philosophical question though).

I'm not saying that universe origin theories shouldn't be debated at all. I'm not telling anyone to get out. I'm asking that you guys actually talk about scientific topics. Science and religion are not limited strictly to an apologetic debate. Scientific thought isn't just about disproving intelligent design and religion isn't about disproving evolution.

Try to get your heads on straight around here and maybe marvel at some legitimately cool-to-talk-about scientific topics in areas like biology, chemistry, physics, theoretical physics. Stuff like that.

There is literally no need for ten different topics about intelligent design.

To start you off, talk about this video: https://www.youtube.com...

And if you guys get into an evolution debate because he mentions evolution, then you have completely missed the point of the video and this post.

The ID topics are indeed getting pretty nauseous. Intelligent design is about 1% of my interest in science... Yet they are like 8/10 topics .... Wtf.

I need to start posting stuff here again...

Yaaaas please.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 11:42:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 8:39:42 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
I came here to see if there were any topics about science.

Instead I saw a ton of topics about intelligent design and a philosophy question (it was a pretty good philosophical question though).

I'm not saying that universe origin theories shouldn't be debated at all. I'm not telling anyone to get out. I'm asking that you guys actually talk about scientific topics. Science and religion are not limited strictly to an apologetic debate. Scientific thought isn't just about disproving intelligent design and religion isn't about disproving evolution.

Try to get your heads on straight around here and maybe marvel at some legitimately cool-to-talk-about scientific topics in areas like biology, chemistry, physics, theoretical physics. Stuff like that.

There is literally no need for ten different topics about intelligent design.

To start you off, talk about this video: https://www.youtube.com...

And if you guys get into an evolution debate because he mentions evolution, then you have completely missed the point of the video and this post.

Jonbonbon...

There are several reason that you see ID dominating the science forums here on DDO. In a nutshell, ID represents a firestorm of controversy unlike other areas of science. Furthermore, the question of the origin of life is fundamental not only to our understanding of life, but it also directly impacts our worldview. Therefore, if we have it wrong concerning the origin of life, we will not have a correct worldview and will therefore have it wrong on many other things as well.

There are many who really wish ID would simply go away. But the truth is, ID best explains the evidence. And the more we learn, the more this point is driven home. Therefore ID is not going away and those who wish that ID would go away at least suspect this truth. They simply cannot afford to keep silent. They are in desperation mode. Accordingly, they are frustrated, loud, and angry right now (and very active!).

While it is axiomatic that immaterial information lies at the heart of all living systems, those who really wish that everything can be explained in terms of pure physicality are not handling this fundamental truth very well at all. As the many forums and debates here at DDO testify, they often manifest denial or a profound misunderstanding of the information of life. Speaking for myself, I am committed to addressing this current state of denial/ignorance until most everyone is at the very least on the same page, acknowledging that information is foundational to life. At that point, if some one wants to claim that this information arose by purely natural processes, at least we will be in agreement about what it is that needs to be explained. I suspect that the other champions of ID here would agree with me that once the information of life is widely acknowledged, the need to bring the message will diminish.

In the meantime, please avail yourself to exploring any scientific question you wish. But don't be dismayed that there are many of us who are passionately committed to the defeat of an industrial age paradigm that has been shattered by the discoveries of modern science.
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 11:53:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 8:39:42 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
I came here to see if there were any topics about science.

Instead I saw a ton of topics about intelligent design and a philosophy question (it was a pretty good philosophical question though).

I'm not saying that universe origin theories shouldn't be debated at all. I'm not telling anyone to get out. I'm asking that you guys actually talk about scientific topics. Science and religion are not limited strictly to an apologetic debate. Scientific thought isn't just about disproving intelligent design and religion isn't about disproving evolution.

Try to get your heads on straight around here and maybe marvel at some legitimately cool-to-talk-about scientific topics in areas like biology, chemistry, physics, theoretical physics. Stuff like that.

There is literally no need for ten different topics about intelligent design.

To start you off, talk about this video: https://www.youtube.com...

And if you guys get into an evolution debate because he mentions evolution, then you have completely missed the point of the video and this post.

Thanks for the cool vid. There are a lot of fascinating creatures out there. I think the platypus is the only one most people are familiar with of the ten discussed.

What are YOUR thoughts on the video? Can you throw out a bone? Threads with just a video don't get far around here, and, considering you mention the very subject you DO NOT want to discuss, this thread has every chance of becoming the very opposite of what you intend...

BUT if you intend for this thread to be an experiment in reverse psychology, then carry on...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 12:19:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 11:53:25 AM, Fly wrote:
At 3/3/2015 8:39:42 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
I came here to see if there were any topics about science.

Instead I saw a ton of topics about intelligent design and a philosophy question (it was a pretty good philosophical question though).

I'm not saying that universe origin theories shouldn't be debated at all. I'm not telling anyone to get out. I'm asking that you guys actually talk about scientific topics. Science and religion are not limited strictly to an apologetic debate. Scientific thought isn't just about disproving intelligent design and religion isn't about disproving evolution.

Try to get your heads on straight around here and maybe marvel at some legitimately cool-to-talk-about scientific topics in areas like biology, chemistry, physics, theoretical physics. Stuff like that.

There is literally no need for ten different topics about intelligent design.

To start you off, talk about this video: https://www.youtube.com...

And if you guys get into an evolution debate because he mentions evolution, then you have completely missed the point of the video and this post.

Thanks for the cool vid. There are a lot of fascinating creatures out there. I think the platypus is the only one most people are familiar with of the ten discussed.

Airmax's avatar has been an Axolotl for like two years.

What are YOUR thoughts on the video?

I think they're pretty cool. I'd especially like to see if cutting apart the Axolotl and putting it back together can help us understand cellular regeneration at a level that could help human. Obviously it wouldn't cute cancer, it would actually make it worse, but it could give someone back a part of their body that got destroyed especially right after a car wreck.

Can you throw out a bone?

Threw it.

Threads with just a video don't get far around here, and, considering you mention the very subject you DO NOT want to discuss, this thread has every chance of becoming the very opposite of what you intend...

Well it's inpossible to criticize the ID threads around here without mentioning the number of ID threads around here.

BUT if you intend for this thread to be an experiment in reverse psychology, then carry on...

This isn't an experiment in reverse psychology. I'm telling you guys to spice things up.

Why are you being so hostile?
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 12:28:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 12:19:28 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 3/4/2015 11:53:25 AM, Fly wrote:
At 3/3/2015 8:39:42 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
I came here to see if there were any topics about science.

Instead I saw a ton of topics about intelligent design and a philosophy question (it was a pretty good philosophical question though).

I'm not saying that universe origin theories shouldn't be debated at all. I'm not telling anyone to get out. I'm asking that you guys actually talk about scientific topics. Science and religion are not limited strictly to an apologetic debate. Scientific thought isn't just about disproving intelligent design and religion isn't about disproving evolution.

Try to get your heads on straight around here and maybe marvel at some legitimately cool-to-talk-about scientific topics in areas like biology, chemistry, physics, theoretical physics. Stuff like that.

There is literally no need for ten different topics about intelligent design.

To start you off, talk about this video: https://www.youtube.com...

And if you guys get into an evolution debate because he mentions evolution, then you have completely missed the point of the video and this post.

Thanks for the cool vid. There are a lot of fascinating creatures out there. I think the platypus is the only one most people are familiar with of the ten discussed.

Airmax's avatar has been an Axolotl for like two years.

What are YOUR thoughts on the video?

I think they're pretty cool. I'd especially like to see if cutting apart the Axolotl and putting it back together can help us understand cellular regeneration at a level that could help human. Obviously it wouldn't cute cancer, it would actually make it worse, but it could give someone back a part of their body that got destroyed especially right after a car wreck.

That would be interesting research. How do you think it compares with stem cell research re: cures for human disease and injury?

Can you throw out a bone?

Threw it.

Threads with just a video don't get far around here, and, considering you mention the very subject you DO NOT want to discuss, this thread has every chance of becoming the very opposite of what you intend...

Well it's inpossible to criticize the ID threads around here without mentioning the number of ID threads around here.

BUT if you intend for this thread to be an experiment in reverse psychology, then carry on...

This isn't an experiment in reverse psychology. I'm telling you guys to spice things up.

Why are you being so hostile?

Sorry-- I had no idea I came off as hostile there. Speaking of, you should check your post #6.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 12:34:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 6:34:58 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
Keep those kind of posts out of this thread.

Jon, for clarity, I'm research science trained, and it has been the foundation of my career. I've educated and trained scientists and engineers all my life. Education is a key part of what I do, and when someone doesn't understand some aspect of science, then to the extent I understand it, I'm more than happy to explain it.

The point of this thread is to point out that science has cool subjects and we need to talk about those,

Strongly agreed.

because scientific thought is stunted by people arguing about ID.

Disagreed. Scientific thought is in no way stunted by ID. Scientific product and quality are as high as they have ever been in human history.

What ID is stunting is public policy, because administrators either do not understand the difference between science and religion couched in scientific language or -- as you have done, for example, refuse to act on that difference.

Apparently, you believe that by stimulating other scientific discussion, ID-trolls will walk away.

But why would they? They're not interested in science, except to undermine its credibility, and interest will follow the fiercest debates. More people are interested in what should be taught in schools than how prokaryotes became eukaryotes, and that's the demographic reality in which DDO must operate.

Should scientists be blamed for explaining science to people who don't understand it? Or for identifying the public policy issues associated with conflating religion with science?

Apparently you think that's the problem here, Jon.

May I be blunt? I don't think that's the problem. I think the Science forum's content will be shaped by what moderators tolerate more than what they encourage.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 12:47:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 12:28:54 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/4/2015 12:19:28 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 3/4/2015 11:53:25 AM, Fly wrote:
At 3/3/2015 8:39:42 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
I came here to see if there were any topics about science.

Instead I saw a ton of topics about intelligent design and a philosophy question (it was a pretty good philosophical question though).

I'm not saying that universe origin theories shouldn't be debated at all. I'm not telling anyone to get out. I'm asking that you guys actually talk about scientific topics. Science and religion are not limited strictly to an apologetic debate. Scientific thought isn't just about disproving intelligent design and religion isn't about disproving evolution.

Try to get your heads on straight around here and maybe marvel at some legitimately cool-to-talk-about scientific topics in areas like biology, chemistry, physics, theoretical physics. Stuff like that.

There is literally no need for ten different topics about intelligent design.

To start you off, talk about this video: https://www.youtube.com...

And if you guys get into an evolution debate because he mentions evolution, then you have completely missed the point of the video and this post.

Thanks for the cool vid. There are a lot of fascinating creatures out there. I think the platypus is the only one most people are familiar with of the ten discussed.

Airmax's avatar has been an Axolotl for like two years.

What are YOUR thoughts on the video?

I think they're pretty cool. I'd especially like to see if cutting apart the Axolotl and putting it back together can help us understand cellular regeneration at a level that could help human. Obviously it wouldn't cute cancer, it would actually make it worse, but it could give someone back a part of their body that got destroyed especially right after a car wreck.

That would be interesting research. How do you think it compares with stem cell research re: cures for human disease and injury?

Can you throw out a bone?

Threw it.

Threads with just a video don't get far around here, and, considering you mention the very subject you DO NOT want to discuss, this thread has every chance of becoming the very opposite of what you intend...

Well it's inpossible to criticize the ID threads around here without mentioning the number of ID threads around here.

BUT if you intend for this thread to be an experiment in reverse psychology, then carry on...

This isn't an experiment in reverse psychology. I'm telling you guys to spice things up.

Why are you being so hostile?

Sorry-- I had no idea I came off as hostile there. Speaking of, you should check your post #6.

I can see how one would feel attacked, but I'm being stern about a topic. You were giving me unrelated accusations.

I mean, I could be softer, but the science section really needs to change soon.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 1:15:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 8:39:42 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
I came here to see if there were any topics about science.

Instead I saw a ton of topics about intelligent design and a philosophy question (it was a pretty good philosophical question though).

I'm not saying that universe origin theories shouldn't be debated at all. I'm not telling anyone to get out. I'm asking that you guys actually talk about scientific topics. Science and religion are not limited strictly to an apologetic debate. Scientific thought isn't just about disproving intelligent design and religion isn't about disproving evolution.

Try to get your heads on straight around here and maybe marvel at some legitimately cool-to-talk-about scientific topics in areas like biology, chemistry, physics, theoretical physics. Stuff like that.

There is literally no need for ten different topics about intelligent design.

To start you off, talk about this video: https://www.youtube.com...

And if you guys get into an evolution debate because he mentions evolution, then you have completely missed the point of the video and this post.

Another issue is that I would guess that not too many people here have access to the scientific literature, or are willing to read beyond abstracts. It's hard to think of things to discuss beyond a superficial level.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 1:20:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 1:15:56 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
Another issue is that I would guess that not too many people here have access to the scientific literature, or are willing to read beyond abstracts. It's hard to think of things to discuss beyond a superficial level.

Most members can't even tell the difference between science journalism (like the stuff we find in Scientific American or New Scientist: reportage about real papers from peer-reviewed journals), and science blogging (which any ratbag can do.)
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 2:10:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 1:20:13 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/4/2015 1:15:56 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
Another issue is that I would guess that not too many people here have access to the scientific literature, or are willing to read beyond abstracts. It's hard to think of things to discuss beyond a superficial level.

Most members can't even tell the difference between science journalism (like the stuff we find in Scientific American or New Scientist: reportage about real papers from peer-reviewed journals), and science blogging (which any ratbag can do.)

Another problem we face all too often here.

Do you think we should try to have some paper discussions here? I'm sure that while you were part of a university lab, you had regular lab meetings which sometimes included discussions of recent or important papers. We could try to do that here with open-access papers, or our own publications, and see if they generate discussion.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 2:38:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 2:10:42 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/4/2015 1:20:13 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/4/2015 1:15:56 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
Another issue is that I would guess that not too many people here have access to the scientific literature, or are willing to read beyond abstracts. It's hard to think of things to discuss beyond a superficial level.

Most members can't even tell the difference between science journalism (like the stuff we find in Scientific American or New Scientist: reportage about real papers from peer-reviewed journals), and science blogging (which any ratbag can do.)

Another problem we face all too often here.

Do you think we should try to have some paper discussions here? I'm sure that while you were part of a university lab, you had regular lab meetings which sometimes included discussions of recent or important papers. We could try to do that here with open-access papers, or our own publications, and see if they generate discussion.

It may not have to be actual papers. Sites like science daily, scientific american, the new scientist, etc... do a good job of explaining the papers and giving direct links to the original publication. I think we can discuss scientific papers on the reports of those kinds of sites, so long as the original paper is cited. I do agree that we should be using papers of reputable sources to back up arguments in this forum. We also should be discouraging the use of papers published by disreputable sources or organizations with special agendas.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 2:51:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 2:10:42 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/4/2015 1:20:13 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/4/2015 1:15:56 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
Another issue is that I would guess that not too many people here have access to the scientific literature, or are willing to read beyond abstracts. It's hard to think of things to discuss beyond a superficial level.

Most members can't even tell the difference between science journalism (like the stuff we find in Scientific American or New Scientist: reportage about real papers from peer-reviewed journals), and science blogging (which any ratbag can do.)

Another problem we face all too often here.

Do you think we should try to have some paper discussions here?

Among the many hats I've worn is science communication. I think it's valuable to have to explain cutting-edge science to ordinary people -- not the least being the shift in focus from what and how to why and so what.

As for who would be interested, only time will tell, but as a vote of one, I can attest that there's not much science I'm *not* interested in. :)

But science and society is also a broad abiding interest, and scientists can under-estimate the social implications of science. We could easily pick any interesting result or innovation and explore the consequences of that -- which makes it debate-friendly too.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 3:06:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is a pretty ironic thread, lol. Somebody doesn't want to talk about ID so they start another thread on the topic.
This space for rent.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 3:10:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The debate is understandable. Nothing fuels interest more than something that breeds controversy and stirs emotions like the debate on life's origins and evolution. But sure, it would be nice if folks brought in other stuff to talk about but I don't think it would generate much interest.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 3:59:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 2:38:13 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/4/2015 2:10:42 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/4/2015 1:20:13 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/4/2015 1:15:56 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
Another issue is that I would guess that not too many people here have access to the scientific literature, or are willing to read beyond abstracts. It's hard to think of things to discuss beyond a superficial level.

Most members can't even tell the difference between science journalism (like the stuff we find in Scientific American or New Scientist: reportage about real papers from peer-reviewed journals), and science blogging (which any ratbag can do.)

Another problem we face all too often here.

Do you think we should try to have some paper discussions here? I'm sure that while you were part of a university lab, you had regular lab meetings which sometimes included discussions of recent or important papers. We could try to do that here with open-access papers, or our own publications, and see if they generate discussion.

It may not have to be actual papers. Sites like science daily, scientific american, the new scientist, etc... do a good job of explaining the papers and giving direct links to the original publication. I think we can discuss scientific papers on the reports of those kinds of sites, so long as the original paper is cited. I do agree that we should be using papers of reputable sources to back up arguments in this forum. We also should be discouraging the use of papers published by disreputable sources or organizations with special agendas.

To be honest, I don't have that much confidence in those sites. They can do a good job, but they sometimes don't. Discussions of how and when they don't could be quite useful too, though.

To be fair, I don't follow any of the science reporting websites, but maybe I'll post an open-access paper that I find interesting and see if anyone wants to discuss it.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 4:01:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 2:51:57 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/4/2015 2:10:42 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/4/2015 1:20:13 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/4/2015 1:15:56 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
Another issue is that I would guess that not too many people here have access to the scientific literature, or are willing to read beyond abstracts. It's hard to think of things to discuss beyond a superficial level.

Most members can't even tell the difference between science journalism (like the stuff we find in Scientific American or New Scientist: reportage about real papers from peer-reviewed journals), and science blogging (which any ratbag can do.)

Another problem we face all too often here.

Do you think we should try to have some paper discussions here?

Among the many hats I've worn is science communication. I think it's valuable to have to explain cutting-edge science to ordinary people -- not the least being the shift in focus from what and how to why and so what.

As for who would be interested, only time will tell, but as a vote of one, I can attest that there's not much science I'm *not* interested in. :)

But science and society is also a broad abiding interest, and scientists can under-estimate the social implications of science. We could easily pick any interesting result or innovation and explore the consequences of that -- which makes it debate-friendly too.

I'd be happy to see you post something. I'll post something too, hopefully in the coming days. For now, I should be ignoring this site and writing my own paper lol. Deadline for the next issue of the journal I'm aiming for is at the end of this month...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 4:08:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 3:10:36 PM, Iredia wrote:
The debate is understandable. Nothing fuels interest more than something that breeds controversy and stirs emotions like the debate on life's origins and evolution.

But the scientific theories on the origins of life don't include one for supernatural agency. Advocacy for that belief would be fine in Religion, or we could discuss teaching it in Politics, but what's it doing in Science?

Science is just about things we can test empirically, and while empirical testing can reveal the anomalous (e.g. black holes are pretty anomalous), it can't conclude that any anomaly is miraculous. Science could confirm whether (for example), human DNA was synthesised rather than evolved, but couldn't tell us that it was the god of Abraham who did it, or that it was synthesised by omnipotence. :)

That's why I think that in the Science forum, any ID post is off-topic, and any combative ID post is a troll post.

And outside the Science forum, why not just call Creationism what it is? It has been a very popular belief historically, and it's nothing to be ashamed of. Why pretend it's something else?
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 9:43:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 4:08:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/4/2015 3:10:36 PM, Iredia wrote:
The debate is understandable. Nothing fuels interest more than something that breeds controversy and stirs emotions like the debate on life's origins and evolution.

But the scientific theories on the origins of life don't include one for supernatural agency. Advocacy for that belief would be fine in Religion, or we could discuss teaching it in Politics, but what's it doing in Science?

Science is just about things we can test empirically, and while empirical testing can reveal the anomalous (e.g. black holes are pretty anomalous), it can't conclude that any anomaly is miraculous. Science could confirm whether (for example), human DNA was synthesised rather than evolved, but couldn't tell us that it was the god of Abraham who did it, or that it was synthesised by omnipotence. :)

That's why I think that in the Science forum, any ID post is off-topic, and any combative ID post is a troll post.

And outside the Science forum, why not just call Creationism what it is? It has been a very popular belief historically, and it's nothing to be ashamed of. Why pretend it's something else?

But the scientific theories on the origins of life don't include one for supernatural agency. Advocacy for that belief would be fine in Religion, or we could discuss teaching it in Politics, but what's it doing in Science?

As one who claims to have done work in science communication (and I have no reason to doubt you), surely you can appreciate an appeal to clarification. Do you consider physical artifacts created by intelligent agents to be "supernatural"? For example, we all know that it is beyond the scope of pure physicality to bring a functional smart phone into existence. Such a physical artifact absolutely requires intelligent agency. Is your smart phone therefore the result of supernatural activity?

If your answer is yes, then I would say to you that we have no shortage of empirical examples of the activity of the supernatural. If your answer is no, then you must agree that a theory on origins which posits intelligent agency is not necessarily an appeal to the supernatural. In either case, you will have affirmed the legitimacy of intelligent agency as a potential candidate for the cause of the OOL.

I would also ask you if you consider OOL science to be a legitimate science? If your answer here is yes, then theories will be presented based on the evidence and they will rise or fall on their own merit. If your answer is no, then no theory or research project - to the extent it has bearing on OOL - can be considered science. The fact is that today, based on relatively recent evidence which grows steadily stronger, OOL theories include one for intelligent agency.

The origin of life is unknowable. It is an event that occurred in the distant past. OOL science is therefore an historical science in the spirit of archaeological science and forensic science. Historical sciences ask a primary question: is the effect in question the result of intentional activity (read: intelligent agency) or simply natural processes? Good historical science seeks the best causal explanation. Intelligent agency is a necessary option in this process. Any "science" which defines away intelligent agency as a causal explanation a-priori is not science; it is metaphysics.

When we look behind the curtain, it is ironic indeed to discover that those who are guilty of blind faith belief are those who do not wish to decide the merits for or against ID on the basis of evidence, but would rather dismiss ID without engaging based on a further implication ( if ID is true, then what is the identity of the designer?) which directly threatens their metaphysic.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 11:22:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 9:43:31 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
Do you consider physical artifacts created by intelligent agents to be "supernatural"?

The Original Poster (who may or may not be a moderator -- DDO seems to lack clear badging for that function), has asked me not to discuss ID at length in this post.

Regardless of the authority of that request, I'll honour it, and give you a summary answer, which you are welcome to explore in more detail elsewhere.

To understand why ID isn't science, Joe, you need to understand science better than the average high school kid. You need to understand why every wild claim isn't an hypothesis or theory; why vague or ambiguous claims are never advanced; where the burden of proof and refutation lie at each step in the process; how quantitative prediction is critical, and qualitative prediction is seldom sufficient; and how scientific consensus is achieved, and how that process is different from gaining credence in (say) philosophy, politics or religion.

You are welcome to ask those questions in another thread. There are at least three self-identified research scientists in this forum, myself included (though I've been working in the development end for many years now.) All take this stuff seriously, and I believe all would be happy to help you.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 1:00:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 11:22:30 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/5/2015 9:43:31 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
Do you consider physical artifacts created by intelligent agents to be "supernatural"?

The Original Poster (who may or may not be a moderator -- DDO seems to lack clear badging for that function), has asked me not to discuss ID at length in this post.

Moderators are Airmax and Ore_Ele. There aren't any others.

Just so you know in case you need to contact one
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 1:01:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 3:06:39 PM, v3nesl wrote:
This is a pretty ironic thread, lol. Somebody doesn't want to talk about ID so they start another thread on the topic.

So the best solution would be inaction? Or should I have created a thread to allude to my point by ambiguous terms and vague analogies?
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 1:21:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 1:00:21 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
Moderators are Airmax and Ore_Ele. There aren't any others.

Thanks, Jon. When you previously issued an demand rather than a request I wasn't clear whether you felt you were exercising some rightful authority.

Regardless, I generally try and observe the intent of the Original Poster as a courtesy.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 2:16:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 1:21:14 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/5/2015 1:00:21 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
Moderators are Airmax and Ore_Ele. There aren't any others.

Thanks, Jon. When you previously issued an demand rather than a request I wasn't clear whether you felt you were exercising some rightful authority.

Regardless, I generally try and observe the intent of the Original Poster as a courtesy.

No I definitely don't have authority here. I'm just someone who's been around long enough to get annoyed with the amount of ID topics that have been at the top of the science section since I've been here
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 2:40:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 2:16:02 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
I'm just someone who's been around long enough to get annoyed with the amount of ID topics that have been at the top of the science section since I've been here

I wouldn't think one needed to be around for too long to realise that many ID proponents posting here have no interest in developing science or learning from it, but are trolling the pants off anyone who has any regard for science. :)