BS: Alternative to Science??

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 08:15 PM

Ooo, ooo...800!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 08:19 PM

It seems to me that you concur with steve that "evolution is true" but thankfully without the verbal gutrot that does no favours to his arguments

I read what you say and respond directly to what you say. You not only deal in gutrot but you deal out gobshitery all the time to hard-working and honest scientists. Your latest effort is just more of the same. You don't listen and you are bereft of constructive thought. But for good ol' Bill you'd be belly-up here. You're a laughing stock as it is, or, rather, would be if your prejudices weren't so bloody wicked. What an incredibly dishonest man you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 09:56 PM

Steve, You keep talkin' 'bout 'religion'..fuck religion!
Maybe Jesus was the next missing link..upwards, that is.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Nov 12 - 04:26 AM

"both you and shimrod say i insert God as explanation, but my contention is that evolutionists insert naturalism into the gaps trusting that later discoveries will validate their faith."

No, pete! A scientists knows, and is quite happy to acknowledge, that there are gaps in the current model (although they may not be in the places you think they are). Further evidence may fill the gaps, or in certain cases, radically modify the model. That's because scientific models of reality are NOT monolithic, unassailable, unchangeable questions of 'faith' like your religion is (how many more times do I have to say that?).

Finally, there's no such thing as "evolutionism" ... or "naturalism" for that matter.

I have heard of 'naturism' - which, I believe, is running around with no clothes on!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: frogprince
Date: 30 Nov 12 - 08:46 AM

"There is NO reasoning with this kind of 'devotion' for an unprovable THEORY!"   Gfs

So the entire mass of science related to evolution is characterized as simple speculation, with a complete misuse of the word theory in this context; but a pop-culture video, loaded with pseudo-scientific
gobbledygook delivered with bubbling emotionalism, is a must-see that proves mind-blowing things. And yes, I waded through the video. That's too much of my life that I can't get back.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Nov 12 - 08:49 AM

I have heard of 'naturism' - which, I believe, is running around with no clothes on!

Maybe all creationists should be forced to do that so that we can all see better what pricks they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Nov 12 - 01:09 PM

Froggers: "So the entire mass of science related to evolution is characterized as simple speculation, with a complete misuse of the word theory in this context;..."

You got it!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: saulgoldie
Date: 30 Nov 12 - 01:10 PM

Alright then. THIS is why SCIENCE is important.


NASA & a Link To Health

What other process of investigation would return these results?? The Church of the FSM? The Church of the Sub-genius and its head figure Right Reverend J. R. "Bob" Dobbs? The (fill in some other)??

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: saulgoldie
Date: 30 Nov 12 - 02:07 PM

Should have been: "What process do these organizations provide that would get us to that end?"

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 01:30 PM

not sure what your point is saul.who is decrying useful science?
BTW the FSM is a mocking evolutionist idea.- a belief system that predicted vestigual organs and junk dna.

bill-no i dont wonder why evolutionism is so widely accepted.i strongly suspect that it is philosophically driven and therefore held as true despite even many of its believers admitting great deficiencies as an explanation of our existence.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 01:41 PM

You've had five days to think that up and all you can come up with is an insulting pile of shite. You are a disgrace.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 01:53 PM

" ... i strongly suspect that it is philosophically driven ..."

Uuuuummmm??? What do you mean by that, pete?

And if the theory of evolution is 'deficient', creationism is just ludicrously stupid!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 05:47 PM

""not sure what your point is saul.who is decrying useful science?""

Well, I have to say that you are Pete, since evolution science includes the discovery and mapping of the human genome which has proved so infallible in criminology and genetics, and so useful in prediction of serious medical conditions.

You can't cherry pick between the ability to detect a genetically based propensity toward particular health risks, and the concomitant knowledge of how cell mutation, which is part of the process of evolution, works.

And I think even you would have to admit that you are not a good, nor even a credible, arbiter of good or bad science, especially since none of what you consider scientific actually is.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 10:38 PM

Maybe it's perception....in a conversation, the term 'force in nature' came up...and I thought of this thread, and the silly arguments over what might just be 'perception'.

"Force in nature"....some scientists focus in on 'in nature'..as in 'natural'..and cataloging the changes found therein.....others focus more on the 'force in'...and they look to the 'unseen'..or even 'above nature' or 'super-natural'. they are both valid studies, and the tempers rise when both sides can't see, that they have different properties...and sometimes even defy each other.

One can't happen without the other, which often is made manifest in the other!

I suppose it's who or what you feel akin to.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 04:29 AM

"some scientists focus in on 'in nature'..as in 'natural'..and cataloging the changes found therein.....others focus more on the 'force in'...and they look to the 'unseen'..or even 'above nature' or 'super-natural'. they are both valid studies, ..."

What ridiculous nonsense! Just give me ONE example of a 'study' of the supernatural which qualifies as valid science!! As I pointed out in the 'afterlife' thread, people who claim to study the supernatural always turn out to be cranks, charlatans or madmen. You can allow yourself to be fooled into believing in ghosts, fairies and boogeymen (and God?), and feel "akin" to such nonsense, if you want to, GfS, but don't confuse such rubbish with science!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 06:29 AM

Studying something that doesn't exist? Sounds rather silly till you look at the claims that the bible is the best seller of all time.

So statistically, study of fairy stories has a higher prevalence than study of what you can observe and deduce from it.

Mind you, I only say that in support of Goofus because as silly as his last post was, many people feel akin to comfort blankets and convenient rather than real answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 08:39 AM

Now that this thread has re-emerged and the self styled scientists are attempting to engage in rational debate with the irrational, I can reply to Steve's "You patronising twat! post.

Steve Shaw
Christ on a bloody bike, what on earth is the matter with you!

Do you think I am making this all up just to annoy you? This is Philosophy of Science 101. It's the sort of stuff you do as a first year undergraduate. Did you skip a few lectures or did you take your degree so long ago that you predated all the thinking of the mid-twentieth century?

The point of science is to close in on those areas in which we lack knowledge.

Er, no Steve, it is to close in on those areas in which we lack understanding. The point of science is to build a coherent set of theories/models/rules that explain, as far as possible, the world we see around us. Knowledge by itself is not science.

Science sets out to disprove nothing. I don't know how old you are, or how long your alleged science career has lasted, but there is something fundamentally wrong with your understanding of the process of scientific enquiry if you think that it sets out to prove or disprove anything at all.

You are quite right to say that science does not set out to prove anything. That is why statements like "If so much knowledge accumulates that a particular theory can no longer be denied then we have found some truth." don't fit in with science. Discovering a new variety of the Barnsley Fern may advance our knowledge but doesn't advance our understanding without asking what makes it different and why it is different. I am reminded of Lord Kelvin's quip "Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting.". Unfair, but a good line. You and pete could look at the same pile of evidence; he would see God and you would see Evolution. It is what you do with that evidence that differentiates Science and Religion.

there is something fundamentally wrong with your understanding of the process of scientific enquiry

I've studied it as a subject. You seem to have no understanding at all if you think it's just evidence, evidence and more evidence. Try this http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html. The odd hiccup but not bad. It's directed at teachers so you shouldn't find it too demanding.

Target audience", eh? You patronising twat!

I'm not sure quite what your problem is here (apart from your recurring Tourette's Syndrome). The vast majority of people are not religious fundamentalists nor are they thoroughly educated in science. They do (in some countries anyway) have the vote. They are the people we need to win over in the fight for reason over superstition. Arguing with pete is futile. Even if you make him see the error of his ways, so what? The people we need to reach are the uncommitted majority. Kelvin had another good quote "An alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid.". If you just stand at the bar and shout "Evolution is TRUE you £$%!"$%$ stupid %$^£$%£$." in her face, she'll go off and serve another customer (who might be pete).

Me: Steve's misrepresentation of science as a sort of alternative to religion

Steve: Do demonstrate where I've ever done that.

Every time you say something like "Evolution is true". Every time you engage with pete in a way which suggests there is some equivalence between his arguments and yours. Every time you fail to produce a coherent argument against anyone who disagrees with you and think that cursing and swearing will win the day.

In an earlier post you said -
Richard Dawkins, a far greater evolutionary biologist than you or I could ever hope to be, a man who will tell you that he can't be certain that God doesn't exist, says that evolution is true.

Indeed he does. Worrying. Just because he's greater than you or I doesn't mean he's greater than other evolutionary biologists. It's hard to tell if he has done any actual science since he found himself a nice little earner as an atheist tele-evangelist. He rarely seems to appear on platforms with other scientists. Here's one occasion when he did - Dawkins vs. Tyson.

You said "So why don't you just bugger off, stop being so stultifyingly annoying and go and look stuff up. I did.. Did you? Have you looked up Karl Popper? Falsifiability? The scientific method? Give it a try, you might find it interesting.

Bryan Creer BSc. Hons. (Sussex), BSc (OU), MSc (Soton)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 08:49 AM

Now that this thread has re-emerged and the self styled scientists are attempting to engage in rational debate with the irrational, I can reply to Steve's "You patronising twat! post.

Well, you got off to a bad start there, didn't you. You could have replied any time you liked, not simply because the thread has been dug up. As for the rest of your dyspeptic post, once again it's full of misrepresentations as well as your morbid fear of "truth". Anyway, I hope you feel better for relieving yourself of it all.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 09:01 AM

Advantage: Snail.

Next Round: Some philosophers of science claim that Popper's doctrine of falsifiability is untenable and self-contradictory.

Comment.

Meanwhile, I'm getting another Coke and a bucket of popcorn!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 10:06 AM

Steve Shaw
once again it's full of misrepresentations

Would you care to elaborate?

From this website - http://old.richarddawkins.net/discussions/553940-karl-popper-on-tolerating-the-intolerant

Most people are aware of Karl Popper as the father of the modern scientific method, and especially as the creator of the logic known as 'Popper falsifiability'.

Clearly , "Most people" doesn't include Steve.

Lighter
Some philosophers of science claim that Popper's doctrine of falsifiability is untenable and self-contradictory.

Of course some philosophers of science took issue with Popper (although I think falsifiability is fairly well accepted) and Steve could use their work to argue against me, maybe even prove me wrong, but that isn't how he does things.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 10:42 AM

I like the "philosophers of science" bit Lighter. I suppose that once you have proven by observation, successful prediction and consistency that something is a fact rather than a hypothesis, you are no longer philosophising, just stating...

I don't agree about popcorn though, I eat it too quickly and this thread cannot end. (Mather's Law.)

Thinking about it, having a PhD in the physics behind certain aspects of engineering, (mechanical vibration) I stand accused of philosophising by default, as by proving (as far as you can) certain conditions always yield certain results, it is seen in academic circles as a philosophy. So if anyone wishes to disagree with my findings, I shall have to have a philosophical debate with you, rather than my first instinct to give you a good spanking and say that a coal feeder delivers 950 t/h not because of my calfrustrations but because of the little baby Jesus / will of Allah whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 05:03 PM

The plot thickens!


Numbrod: "What ridiculous nonsense! Just give me ONE example of a 'study' of the supernatural which qualifies as valid science!!.."

Sorry...how foolish of me...it is talked about in the video...so don't watch it, and think small...like your buddy Steve.

Musket, being as you seem to understand physics(?)...you should also have checked it out..and comment on that part.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 06:16 PM

shimrod-i have previously quoted an evolutionist admitting that there is no such thing as a dispassionate,impartial scientist and i could dig out the lewontin quote about "..not allowing a divine foot in the door".it all takes time that i dont have this time of night but suffice it to say ,i am not quoting creationists here.

here is something else to discuss-
if you evolved and presumably are in the path of continuing evolution,then your brain is only chemical reactions that will also change   
if you say that all of our minds are
shuffle chance of chemical change
why should anyone trust anything your saying
yer brain just might need a re-arrange!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 06:32 PM

More Taurean excrement!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 07:57 PM

Would you care to elaborate?

Christ, you're such a bore, but here goes.

The point of science is to close in on those areas in which we lack knowledge.

Er, no Steve, it is to close in on those areas in which we lack understanding. The point of science is to build a coherent set of theories/models/rules that explain, as far as possible, the world we see around us. Knowledge by itself is not science.

"Er no Steve" my fat arse. Without knowledge there is no understanding. You can't do maths if you don't know your tables. Science is the endeavour to understand the world around us and it is predicated on a vast body of knowledge. If you want to see what happens when you try to gain understanding without an evidence-based body of knowledge, look no further than the creationist idiot who posts here. He knows nothing yet thinks he understands everything. The fact is that he understands nothing because he knows nothing.

You are quite right to say that science does not set out to prove anything.

Well I'm glad you admit it. That isn't what you said before.

That is why statements like "If so much knowledge accumulates that a particular theory can no longer be denied then we have found some truth." don't fit in with science.

Of course it does. You are not a robot nor Mr Spock. You are a human being. If your scientific endeavour does not contain at least a little yearning to get at the truth, you are neither a scientist nor a human being. The physics may be intractable at times but the human being teasing it out needs a bit of, er, romance in his/her soul. It's inevitable. It's an intrinsic part of enquiry. I can't think what you think you're doing as a scientist if you're scared of the fact that there's truth out there. Maybe you think that truth is exclusively God's domain. I am suspicious of you in that regard, as I've said before.   

Discovering a new variety of the Barnsley Fern may advance our knowledge but doesn't advance our understanding without asking what makes it different and why it is different.

You are rambling. Meaningless gibberish.

I am reminded of Lord Kelvin's quip "Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting.". Unfair, but a good line.

Not only unfair but a load of absolute bollocks. Sorry if I'm offending one of your gods.

You and pete could look at the same pile of evidence; he would see God and you would see Evolution. It is what you do with that evidence that differentiates Science and Religion.

Pete wouldn't know what evidence was if it reared up and bit him on his fundamentalist bollocks. And you were telling me a minute ago that I was wrong to claim that science is a quest for knowledge (aka evidence). So the above statement is utterly inconsistent with what you said before. Not only that, it is equally inaccurate. "What you do with evidence" is what science does, not religion. Religion hates evidence. Religion loves hearsay, witness, edicts from popes, dodgy stories in ancient texts and scaremongering.   

I've studied it as a subject. You seem to have no understanding at all if you think it's just evidence, evidence and more evidence.

Well good for you. The only thing is, I don't think science is that at all and you have no grounds for saying it.

Target audience", eh? You patronising twat!

The vast majority of people are not religious fundamentalists nor are they thoroughly educated in science. They do (in some countries anyway) have the vote. They are the people we need to win over in the fight for reason over superstition.

Well there you go. OK, I'll revise. You patronising, evangelical twat.

Steve's misrepresentation of science as a sort of alternative to religion

Do demonstrate where I've ever done that.

Every time you say something like "Evolution is true". Every time you engage with pete in a way which suggests there is some equivalence between his arguments and yours.

I do not "engage" with pete, do I. If you think what I've been doing in recent weeks is in any way indulging or engaging with that brainless twerp, well just wait 'til I get really cross. I've bent over backwards more than anyone else here to show up the eejit's utterly vacuous and ignorant nonsense. "Equivalence" my arse. Wrong man, old chum.   

   
In an earlier post you said -
Richard Dawkins, a far greater evolutionary biologist than you or I could ever hope to be, a man who will tell you that he can't be certain that God doesn't exist, says that evolution is true.

Indeed he does. Worrying. Just because he's greater than you or I doesn't mean he's greater than other evolutionary biologists. It's hard to tell if he has done any actual science since he found himself a nice little earner as an atheist tele-evangelist. He rarely seems to appear on platforms with other scientists. Here's one occasion when he did - Dawkins vs. Tyson.

Sour grapes, old bean. I said he was greater than you and me. You want to extrapolate in a splenetic outburst against him, go ahead. I'm not with you.

Finally, I note your characterisation of me and unspecified others as "self-styled scientists." It is very touching to see a man totally without any sense of irony do that -- then type out in full all his "qualifications". Nice touch!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 12:38 AM

Pete, Think nothing of it...Steve is bonkers with hate and resentment, from some bad experiences with a 'religion'. he can't differentiate between what you are talking about, (or I), without trying to discredit it, according to his biased, and rather limited point of view. He is not looking at it from his own 'studies', but rather stuff he's heard about that is a convenient refuge, from looking at the whole, in its entirety.
He tried the entropy rap, which got shot down to pieces, because entropy denotes 'decay'..and either we are evolving into 'decay', OR we are 'decaying' from a higher state.
So that doesn't work.....
As far as 'evolution'..he doesn't see that death in this mortal state, that we are in, is open to a possible link upward..because he confuses it with 'religion'...and will not study it any further...
so his 'evolution' rap doesn't work either.
That being said, nothing is evolving into 'decay'....
Nope, that doesn't work either....
Creation??..You mean it's over????..or is it evolving???
...or does it really matter???
Unless anyone really knows...their guessing!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 05:04 AM

"shimrod-i have previously quoted an evolutionist admitting that there is no such thing as a dispassionate,impartial scientist ..."

I wouldn't quarrel with that statement - but then the system for exploring reality which is science is a collective enterprise and is much greater than the sum of its parts.

Oh yes, and it's unlikely that you quoted a person who described himself as an "evolutionist" - he would have been a biologist who viewed/views evidence in the light of evolutionary theory.

Keep repeating to yourself: "Science is NOT an unchangeable, unassailable, faith-driven monolith like my religion".

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 05:19 AM

GfS, 'frogprince' did sit through your stupid video (what a hero!) and here's what he said:

" ... a pop-culture video, loaded with pseudo-scientific
gobbledygook delivered with bubbling emotionalism, is a must-see that proves mind-blowing things. And yes, I waded through the video. That's too much of my life that I can't get back."

fp's analysis of the whole thing does not surprise me (having endured the first part myself) - so, give me ONE example of a 'study' of the supernatural which qualifies as valid science!!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 05:22 AM

Very amusing, Guffers. Might I suggest you now take a small break from posting in order to spend a little time investigating what "entropy" means?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 05:49 AM

I too wasted time that could have been better spent by watching that pile of over excited, evangelical tripe Shim, and can understand how it would appeal to Goofus.

One has only to look at the tone and quality of his input into this site to know he would be a sucker for that kind of high and mighty appeal to the terminally confused.

More to be pitied than blamed.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 06:15 AM

Thank you, Don. I completely agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 08:09 AM

*Yawn* Need more coffee....

> there is no such thing as a dispassionate,impartial scientist

To be precise, there is no such thing as a perfectly dispassionate, impartial human being.

That includes creationists.

The real issue, however, is whose research and evaluation are, systematically, the *most* impartial, dispassionate, and therefore reliable.

Obviously scientists need not be "dispassionate" (in the sense of "unconcerned") when turning from their research to educate people about facts like AIDS and global warming, dangers like nuclear winter, or pervasive threats to education. The latter include all claims that creationism is a science and evolution is just a theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 11:59 AM

It's the little things that count. Like Goofus, having been stripped of what credibility he ever had, slipping in a question mark as to whether I understand physics.

let me help you here.

I don't.

However, I have published a PhD thesis on a small matter that uses known and demonstrably accepted classical physics calculations in order to prove my point.

if there were an alternative to science (this thread used to be about that, remember?) then I wouldn't have to had to explain why Newton's bucket could still be relevant in a relativity aware world. No, I'd just have to say the little baby Jesus makes vibrator motors produce 4 g of force on the system and God decreed that this, at an acceptable angle of incidence, is enough to transport bulk solids within an range of density.

Here's the rub. God might have decreed it. After all, there is no alternative answer as to why. But as I was dabbling in the world of science, I have no right to make such a conclusion. Not that I am shallow enough ever to do so, but that's another matter.

And (don't you hate people who start a sentence with "and"?) for that matter, if I can't ascribe science to God, starry pete can't ascribe God to science.

The only alternative to science is to watch Beckham bend the ball into the top corner of the net. Not through trajectory calculations but through instinct / magic.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 02:07 PM

You are mellowing, Steve. A much reduced incidence of swear words although still the same string of ad hominem attacks and complete failure to make a coherent response to any of the points I raised.

Not much point in responding to any of it but there is one thing to clarify. I have never said that science sets out to prove anything. If you think I have, produce your evidence.

Finally, I note your characterisation of me and unspecified others as "self-styled scientists."
That was wrong of me. I apologise unreservedly. I promise in future to present my arguments to the same high standard of fairness and courtesy exemplified by your good self.

It is very touching to see a man totally without any sense of irony do that -- then type out in full all his "qualifications". Nice touch!

One of your favourite debating techniques (after abuse) is to question the qualifications of your opponents. For some reason this doesn't stop you trying to reason with pete, who gets his science from creationist websites, and Guest from Sanity, who gets his science from the Discovery Channel. Where Chongo gets his science from we may never know.

Of me you said - "I don't know how old you are, or how long your alleged science career has lasted, but there is something fundamentally wrong with your understanding of the process of scientific enquiry". If you are going to imply that you are better qualified than I am, I felt it was reasonable to spell out my qualifications. In particular, I have studied the scientific method at undergraduate level and Philosophy of Science at postgraduate level. Your response to that was "Well good for you. The only thing is, I don't think science is that at all and you have no grounds for saying it.". So what do you think science is and how have you arrived at that conclusion? You don't seem to have heard of Popper or falsifiability. Nothing you have said has shown any sort of understanding of the scientific method. Is your view of science entirely of your own making? I have given you links to helpful websites, quoted material on other threads and suggested topics for you to Google. You have ignored them all. You seem to be proud of your ignorance and determined to preserve it while still, somehow, claiming your own superiority.

Bryan Creer RYA Inshore Yachtmaster (theory), RSMAB Grade 3 oboe, MCP

P.S. Saying that Dawkins is a greater evolutionary biologist that you or I isn't setting the bar particularly high.

P.P.S. You'd really like Barnsley's Fern.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 04:00 PM

Now how on earth do you know that I don't know about Popper or don't look up your links?! That is ludicrously pompous and arrogant. Actually, had Popper still been around I think he'd be mortally embarrassed at the certainty of ideas you endow him with. His falsifiability notion, much-vaunted by you ad nauseam, came in for so much criticism that he had to acknowledge his own reservations about it, especially with regard to evolution theory. And, from the exchanges of recent weeks, you must be utterly cuckoo if you think that I've been "reasoning" with Guffers and Brainless Pete. If anything I've demonstrated that they are, in turns, no more than entertaining and completely stupid. And I do not doubt your esteemed qualifications, though I do wonder why you see the need to parade yours while I can happily keep mine to myself (and I do have some, and could probably give you chapter and verse on a damn sight more ferns than yer Barnsley one, if pushed). You may not like my somewhat abrupt manner with those I consider to be incorrigibly foolish, but I dislike your misrepresentation of me even more (possibly, though I lack the evidence).

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 04:02 PM

And he even forgot to put in the bloody sporangia.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 04:21 PM

Now everybody's getting into the act:

http://news.yahoo.com/science-vs-god-does-progress-trump-faith-202019706.html

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 04:27 PM

For the more curious:

http://www.livescience.com/11316-top-10-intelligent-designs-creation-myths.html

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 10:15 PM

Steve: "And, from the exchanges of recent weeks, you must be utterly cuckoo if you think that I've been "reasoning" with Guffers and Brainless Pete."

Don't worry,.....I don't think we ever thought THAT!!!


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 03:18 AM

Ferns? My favourite subject! Let's talk about ferns instead! Mmmmm! Sporangia, sori, gametophytes, pinnules, stipes and rachises ...

Sorry! Got a bit carried away there ...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 06:00 AM

I'm still waiting for Snail to enlarge on that seemingly irrelevant intrusion into his post, to be honest. "I know something clever so I think I'll stick it into a post whether it's germane or not."

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 06:03 AM

Let's talk about ferns instead! Mmmmm!

You make them sound so delicious. Always found 'em a bit on the chewy side except for that Wilson's Filmy on Rough Tor...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 06:05 AM

Steve Shaw
Now how on earth do you know that I don't know about Popper or don't look up your links?! That is ludicrously pompous and arrogant.
I said "You don't SEEM to have heard of Popper or falsifiability." I don't know whether you have or not or whether you look up my links. Let's just say that there is very little evidence that you do. I have done a search through this thread and a previous one where Popper was first mentioned (not by me). Before yesterday you had never mentioned Popper in one of your postings and falsifiability only once (and got it wrong).

Actually, had Popper still been around I think he'd be mortally embarrassed at the certainty of ideas you endow him with.

Now how on earth do you know what Popper would have thought? That is ludicrously pompous and arrogant.

His falsifiability notion, much-vaunted by you ad nauseam, came in for so much criticism that he had to acknowledge his own reservations about it, especially with regard to evolution theory.

Funny that you've never mentioned this before, preferring to demonstrate the depth of your research and grasp of the subject with lines like "OK, Slimetrail, I see you're going back to twathood.". Could you give me a reference to him acknowledging his own reservations about falsifiability? I can't find anything that says that. He didn't have any problem with evolution but he did, initially, dismiss natural selection (which is not the same thing) as non-scientific by his criteria. It's a problem that is still discussed. "Survival of the fittest" is tautological because the only measure of fitness is survival. He listened to wiser counsel and changed his mind although I must admit that I find the reasons why a trifle vague.

And, from the exchanges of recent weeks, you must be utterly cuckoo if you think that I've been "reasoning" with Guffers and Brainless Pete. If anything I've demonstrated that they are, in turns, no more than entertaining and completely stupid.

You are quite right of course; you never actually "reason" with anybody but you have put considerable time and energy into hurling abuse at them.

And I do not doubt your esteemed qualifications, though I do wonder why you see the need to parade yours while I can happily keep mine to myself (and I do have some, and could probably give you chapter and verse on a damn sight more ferns than yer Barnsley one, if pushed).

But you have cast doubt on my qualifications several times Steve. It is one of your favourite ways of avoiding actually addressing the arguments put up against you. For instance in the Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... thread you said of a passage about falsifiability I had quoted - "If I thought for one minute that Snail understood a word of this, I'd take him up on it." which I think is code for "I don't understand it so I'll just brush it aside.". yes, Steve, I did understand it because I have studied the subject at University. You continued with one of your usual diatribes in which you excelled yourself with expressions like "utterly risible" "a load of pretentious old bollocks" "crock of shite" and ended with " I challenge Snail to pick out and précis the aforementioned words of wisdom in plain English.". I did so shortly afterwards. You ignored me. So, yes, you make it necessary for me to spell out my credentials.

You may not like my somewhat abrupt manner with those I consider to be incorrigibly foolish, but I dislike your misrepresentation of me even more (possibly, though I lack the evidence).

You do not have an "abrupt manner" Steve. You are gratuitously abusive. The people you "consider to be incorrigibly foolish" are anybody who disagrees with you ranging from the intelligent and educated such as TIA and Bill D to the hapless pete. You treat us all the same.

In my previous post I asked "So what do you think science is and how have you arrived at that conclusion?". Any chance of an answer?

P.S. I defer to your superior knowledge of ferns.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 06:08 AM

Steve Shaw

I'm still waiting for Snail to enlarge on that seemingly irrelevant intrusion into his post, to be honest.

It's called Taking The Piss.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 08:56 AM

I don't know whether you have or not or whether you look up my links. Let's just say that there is very little evidence that you do. I have done a search through this thread and a previous one where Popper was first mentioned (not by me). Before yesterday you had never mentioned Popper in one of your postings

The only accurate thing here is that you say "you don't know." You think that, just because I don't rattle on and on about someone or something, I don't know anything about it. Old chap, it's bad enough round here without you and I going off on one about the philosophy of science (wake up at the back there!) There is "very little evidence" because I haven't given you any. I haven't given you any evidence of my degree, university or subject either. I suggest that if you want people to obediently click on your links (and how many of us have done that with unsupported links to find that yet another little chunk of life has ebbed away...) you précis the contents or at least give some relevant quotes from it.

As for this:
His falsifiability notion, much-vaunted by you ad nauseam, came in for so much criticism that he had to acknowledge his own reservations about it, especially with regard to evolution theory.
Funny that you've never mentioned this before, preferring to demonstrate the depth of your research and grasp of the subject with lines like "OK, Slimetrail, I see you're going back to twathood.". Could you give me a reference to him acknowledging his own reservations about falsifiability? I can't find anything that says that. He didn't have any problem with evolution but he did, initially, dismiss natural selection (which is not the same thing) as non-scientific by his criteria. It's a problem that is still discussed. "Survival of the fittest" is tautological because the only measure of fitness is survival. He listened to wiser counsel and changed his mind although I must admit that I find the reasons why a trifle vague.

Huh? All you've done is confirm what I said.

And finally, one of your routine misrepresentations in all its naked glory:

You getting all hoity-toity:

Now how on earth do you know what Popper would have thought? That is ludicrously pompous and arrogant.

But what I actually said:

Actually, had Popper still been around I think he'd be mortally embarrassed at the certainty of ideas you endow him with.

When I'm inclined towards something but am not sure, the non-existence of God for example, I say "I think". If I feel reasonably certain about something, the truth of the general thrust of evolution for example, I say "I know." You're not really worth taking seriously if you can't represent properly what I so clearly and simply say, are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 10:30 AM

Steve Shaw
I suggest that if you want people to obediently click on your links ...

I just thought that, as a scientist, you might be interested. Are you now saying you don't read them?

Huh? All you've done is confirm what I said.

You said - "that [Popper] had to acknowledge his own reservations about [falsifiability]"

As far as I am aware, he did not. He did acknowledge that his own reservations about natural selection, which he had initially thought was a non-science, were wrong and that it did pass his falsifiability test.

Steve: Now how on earth do you know that I don't know about Popper or don't look up your links?! That is ludicrously pompous and arrogant.
I had said "You don't seem...".

Me: Now how on earth do you know what Popper would have thought? That is ludicrously pompous and arrogant.
You had said "I think..."

Just to complete the symmetry - You're not really worth taking seriously if you can't represent properly what I so clearly and simply say, are you?

More in hope than expectation - a few posts ago I asked "So what do you think science is and how have you arrived at that conclusion?". Any chance of an answer?

P.S. If you don't want me to state my qualifications, stop attacking my competence and address my arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 11:52 AM

P.S. If you don't want me to state my qualifications, stop attacking my competence and address my arguments

Blimey, give me any more information and I'll be able to address your Christmas cards. Incidentally, I don't give a monkey's mickey whether you state your qualifications or not. Maybe you'll start a trend. Kick us off, Guffers...? (Lemme guess: fourth prize for best stand-up, Goole Pier talent contest 1969...)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 12:16 PM

With fading hope and diminishing expectation - a few posts ago I asked "So what do you think science is and how have you arrived at that conclusion?". Any chance of an answer?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 01:40 PM

Snail: "With fading hope and diminishing expectation - a few posts ago I asked "So what do you think science is and how have you arrived at that conclusion?". Any chance of an answer?"


You already answered that one Snail!

Steve Shaw: "And, from the exchanges of recent weeks, you must be utterly cuckoo if you think that I've been "reasoning" with Guffers and Brainless Pete. If anything I've demonstrated that they are, in turns, no more than entertaining and completely stupid.

Snail: "You are quite right of course; you never actually "reason" with anybody but you have put considerable time and energy into hurling abuse at them."

Snail: "Any chance of an answer?"


Steve doesn't know squat about what he is talking about, but does, in fact throw insults at people THINKING his insults are going to 'prove' his 'theories' are absolute.

Snail, you already have him pinned when you posted, "I just thought that, as a scientist, you might be interested. Are you now saying you don't read them?"

I posted a couple of links, that he went ballistic denouncing...and that he admittedly NEVER looked at them!!

This is a moron, unwilling to even look at, review, or research any topic brought up, that he feels might threaten his preconceptions!!...and that my dear friends is the exact definition of, " BS: Alternative to Science??".....especially the "BS" part!

He can't 'reason' with anyone, and he doesn't....nor even discuss the topic or related data.
In short, as I said before, he is a 'big mouth blowhard'.

First ya' get pegged...then you get pinned!!

Amos said it VERY well, but to Steve's buddy, 'Numb-rod' when he posted, Amos: "Have it your way--all thought is biomechanical, intentionality is just a deterministic accident, and all spiritual awareness is illusory, a simple happenstance of brain oxygen levels or some such.
Merry Christmas, and a long and happy life to you anyway."



Have a pleasant day, Snail!
Regards to You!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 02:09 PM

Heheh. Well, Snailie, at least you know who yer friends are. :-)

You are such an amusing fellow, Guffers (assuming that you're not a lady - apologies if you are). Never more so than when you are being ironic, totally unbeknowns to yourself, thus:

Steve doesn't know squat about what he is talking about, but does, in fact throw insults at people...
...This is a moron...
...as I said before, he is a 'big mouth blowhard'
...Steve's buddy, 'Numb-rod'...

And, Gastropodus incorrigibilis, you really should have learned by now that I choose, like you do, what I respond to, and the more you hassle the less likely it is you'll obtain satisfaction. One knows one's little game, one should be aware.