|
10 Apr 14 - 07:16 PM (#3617389) Subject: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Jack the Sailor N. D. Tyson strikes again. |
|
10 Apr 14 - 07:19 PM (#3617392) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: kendall He is so right. So many people decide what is true simply by what they want to be true. Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up. |
|
10 Apr 14 - 07:32 PM (#3617395) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Ed T Well, the thread title approch would likely limit the amount of debate on here:) What an odd concept! |
|
10 Apr 14 - 07:40 PM (#3617398) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity When one uses emotionally charged arguments, instead of FACTS, to get their points across..BEWARE!!...it is usually a manipulation!!!! GfS |
|
10 Apr 14 - 07:59 PM (#3617402) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Joe Offer So, Jack, what is the guy saying, and what do you think of what he's saying? Make a commitment here, not just a link. Even ignorant people can make links, thereby avoiding the pratfalls of arguing from ignorance. -Joe Offer- |
|
10 Apr 14 - 08:25 PM (#3617407) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Janie Nor arrogance either. |
|
10 Apr 14 - 10:09 PM (#3617414) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Jack the Sailor I think the link is very straight forward. I think the title compliments the link and the point that Dr. Tyson is making is very straight forward and clear. GfS got it and even took it a little further. Kendall got it, Ed got it and made a joke. I don't know that there is a stand to take. I believe that Unidentified Flying Objects are exactly that until they are identified. I posted the link because I thought folks here might like it. I had no intention to argue about it. If you want to argue about it with me, I will argue with you but only out of respect for you. Pick a topic and a side and I will argue the opposite. How about that? I am not what to make of Janie's post. If she is saying don't argue out of arrogance. I agree. Ignorance and arrogance IMHO are related states of mind. |
|
10 Apr 14 - 10:19 PM (#3617417) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity What about those who argue with the ignorant?? I happens a lot on here!! Oh, and Cappy, I think Joe DID get it..he worked a bit of the facetious, with wit...and tied it together with a 'suggestion'. Don't take it personally....he was just working off your line. GfS |
|
10 Apr 14 - 10:28 PM (#3617419) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Oooops....What about those who argue with the ignorant?? It happens a lot on here!! Oh, and Cappy, I think Joe DID get it..he worked a bit of the facetious, with wit...and tied it together with a 'suggestion'. Don't take it personally....he was just working off your line. GfS You can delete the other one..(typo) |
|
10 Apr 14 - 11:35 PM (#3617426) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Jack the Sailor You think so GfS? One way to avoid arguing from ignorance is not to argue. |
|
11 Apr 14 - 01:13 AM (#3617441) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity OR...only argue with those topics that one is familiar with.... BTW, IGNORance has its roots in 'Ignore'. If one IGNORES facts, then he is 'ignorant'.... ..as far as Joe's comments, I took it as well spirited, and NOT insulting you. I think you can be cool with it, and not over-sensitive to it...though, I can clearly see why you may have taken it as a 'negative' reply....AND...that being said, do you think he had a point??? Perhaps make your own statement, in regards to it. You probably won't get as 'beat up' as Akenaton, Keith or I have over the homosexual issue....and we survived!!.......and even have made GREAT headway! One good thing, false bullshit runs out of steam..so...as Joe alluded to, "Make a commitment here, not just a link. Even ignorant people can make links, thereby avoiding the pratfalls of arguing from ignorance." I think you're OK with that!! Hey, Regards!! GfS |
|
11 Apr 14 - 03:13 AM (#3617461) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Ed T Lets suppose that most folks would agree, here, that it is beneficial to have discussion based only in factual information. I am curious as to what standard is prpoosed to benchmark something as factual? If science and research were used, how would one deal with inconclusive information sources, even those which have been subjected to "somewhat" rigiourous scientific investigation? How would one deal with those taking somewhat reliable factual information, and extending the meaning beyond the factual reach (filling in the dots, which seems to be a function if the human mind). How does one deal with "cherry picking"of factual information and dismissing other valid factual information, to make a case already chosen? How would one set aside, (non factual) social, religious, (small p) political, idealogical differences, that seem to get discussions off course. Different interpretations on the meaning of words even seem to have gotten discussions off course. How would one deal with that, as words ofen have a variety if definitions? Even the term ignorance may has a different meanings to different folks, often merely meaning what the other person puts forward. |
|
11 Apr 14 - 03:27 AM (#3617466) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,Eliza I don't think arguing from ignorance is a good thing; I do think 'exploring ideas and viewpoints together' is a better way. One can put forward a view or a thought not necessarily backed up by facts, and let others comment or explain. That way, nobody gets obstreperous and everyone can learn and develop their theories. If I were only allowed to comment here from complete knowledge, I'd hardly post at all, because I don't pretend to know very much about stuff. (only too obvious, I expect!) |
|
11 Apr 14 - 03:42 AM (#3617468) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Backwoodsman But you do have shedloads of common sense and manners Eliza. Both count for a very great deal AFAIC. |
|
11 Apr 14 - 03:46 AM (#3617469) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,BobL Never argue with a fool, for he is doing the same - Les Barker. Not that the ignorant are all necessarily fools of course, nor all fools necessarily ignorant. |
|
11 Apr 14 - 03:47 AM (#3617470) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,Eliza Thank you very much Backwoodsman. |
|
11 Apr 14 - 04:03 AM (#3617471) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Ed, The most reliable way of discovery is 'the impartial observer', a term used in science, to describe the person gathering the data... not to 'prove a point' but to observe the nature of the item being studied, or observed, to reach an unbiased basis, from which to catalog the properties.....from there one can proceed further. One place to completely AVOID in seeking the truth about just about anything, is politics!!!...(I just HAD to throw that in to underline the word 'impartial'!!). GfS |
|
11 Apr 14 - 04:28 AM (#3617478) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Ed T facts versus values ""All facts are a function of interpretation. This unavoidability of interpretation makes all facts a matter of inference, and consequently all evidence - direct or circumstantial - nothing more or less than a contribution to that inferential process. "" An interesting related article in the link. |
|
11 Apr 14 - 04:47 AM (#3617484) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Big Al Whittle he's got a sort of Billy Graham style - anecdotal, personable, persuasive. wouldn't trust anyone wearing a suit like that... okay supposing we close our minds to the possibility of urban spacemen, he mr spaceman, groovy cosmic sounds....thank god everybody doesn't - otherwise we would have missed out on some good songs. kurt Vonnegut's books. |
|
11 Apr 14 - 04:55 AM (#3617488) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Ed T "he's got a sort of Billy Graham style " What spaceman has that, David Bowie? |
|
11 Apr 14 - 05:40 AM (#3617499) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Big Al Whittle when you think of it - this guy really is talking bollocks. every speculation about the universe....Freudian analysis, Christianity, the periodic table....it all relies on a poetic interpretation of existence. we all cherry pick our favourite theories. it reminds me a bit of Thomas Gradgrind ....give me facts! its all just debunking, destructive, negativity. a justification for being nasty to people. |
|
11 Apr 14 - 05:47 AM (#3617501) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,Triplane Jack My ignorncce is infinitely greater than my knowledge. (fact) Does that mean I should NOT have a point of view based on the little knowledge i have, and allow those with greater BALANCED opinions & knowledge on a subect enlighten me :)> |
|
11 Apr 14 - 06:35 AM (#3617518) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: gnu Arguing about argument. Surely... nay, possibly... the acme of 'below the line'. |
|
11 Apr 14 - 08:08 AM (#3617543) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Dave the Gnome BTW, IGNORance has its roots in 'Ignore'. If one IGNORES facts, then he is 'ignorant'.... May have the same stem, GfS, but ignorance has nothing to do with ignore here. In this context, ignorance is lack of knowledge. ignorance Pronunciation: /ˈɪgn(ə)r(ə)ns noun Lack of knowledge or information: he acted in ignorance of basic procedures Origin Middle English: via Old French from Latin ignorantia, from ignorant- 'not knowing' (see ignorant). Hope this helps with your ignorance of the language :-) DtG |
|
11 Apr 14 - 09:08 AM (#3617558) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Jack the Sailor I think arguing about this topic without having watched the video is a pretty tangible example of arguing from ignorance. |
|
11 Apr 14 - 04:04 PM (#3617704) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link having just watched the video, somehow I lost the link between seeing a UFO, and forming a non evidenced conviction of what it was, and the telephone game [aka Chinese whispers]. seem like inaccurate parallels [ if that was the intention] |
|
11 Apr 14 - 06:08 PM (#3617722) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Richard Bridge Oh, look who's here. |
|
11 Apr 14 - 08:29 PM (#3617757) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Steve Shaw Don't argue from ignorance. A thread started by Wacko (wot a novelty!) Sorry, I can't read on. I have to go to the corset shop now as I've just split mine. |
|
12 Apr 14 - 02:54 AM (#3617804) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,Musket If you weren't allowed to argue from ignorance on these threads, there would be nobody to rip the piss out of. Pointing and laughing. You know it makes sense. I don't need to watch the video. I have taken a leaf out of the book of many here and am comfortable with my preconception instead. Far better than learning. ;-) |
|
12 Apr 14 - 05:44 AM (#3617838) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,Grishka If I understood Tyson correctly, his "argumentation from ignorance" means something like "Since I know of no scientific explanation, it must be ..." (enter your favourite explanation, scientific or not) - a clear fallacy. (In contrast, "I guess ..." is perfectly permissible.) The notion "Unidentified Flying Object" consists of three words; the first one becomingly admitting some ignorance, whereas the other two do make assumptions: a) the sighting is caused by light coming directly from an object, and b) the object is "flying", i.e. solid and propelled by a force beyond mere gravity. In other words, most "UFO" sightings are not sightings of FOs at all. "People are so stupid; they always believe they are right, and fail to realize that in fact I am the one who is right!" |
|
12 Apr 14 - 09:34 AM (#3617873) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Steve Shaw "Since I know of no scientific explanation, it must be ..." (enter your favourite explanation, scientific or not) - a clear fallacy Well I'm not clear whether you agree with the fellow or not (I won't fence-sit: I agree with everything he says in the clip). In "enter your favourite explanation", it would be perfectly feasible to enter "that a supernatural being who breaks all the rules, who no-one has ever seen and for whom we have no evidence created everything in the universe, in fact, the universe itself..." Interesting that the chap who started this thread, who is clearly a Tyson fan but who also espouses belief in God, didn't see the potential for that little trip-up. So, Jack, what is the guy saying, and what do you think of what he's saying? Make a commitment here, not just a link. Even ignorant people can make links, thereby avoiding the pratfalls of arguing from ignorance. Well said, by the way. |
|
12 Apr 14 - 03:57 PM (#3617978) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link "........and breaks all the rules......." and what rules might they be, and who do you think made the rules? |
|
12 Apr 14 - 04:13 PM (#3617983) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Steve Shaw The laws of nature, dear boy, the laws of nature. And I do not, unlike you, require a God Of The Gaps to formulate them. In other words, I do not need to try to explain the difficult stuff, though it's stuff we are closing in on, with the utterly and eternally inexplicable. Basically because, unlike you, I am neither mad nor utterly deluded. Do try not to bother me. You will find far more fertile ground with other targets. You really are a very slow learner, aren't you? |
|
12 Apr 14 - 04:25 PM (#3617988) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Jack the Sailor "Make a commitment here, not just a link." Sure thing! since you asked! Fuck on off to the corset shop you arrogant, ignorant, rude, lying piece of shit. |
|
12 Apr 14 - 05:28 PM (#3618012) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,Grishka Jack, are you sure your statement satisfies Joe's imperative? Are you talking about him or Tyson? In what way do you think Tyson has a point which coincides with your own view? Steve, In "enter your favourite explanation", it would be perfectly feasible to enter "that a supernatural being who breaks all the rules, who no-one has ever seen ...Better write: whom no-one has ever seen, otherwise your statement is correct, and I have no reason to modify mine. If we think we know a law of nature but suddenly find it broken, it proves nothing else than that the law does not hold. In my opinion, religion is something quite different, and those who confuse the two domains are called superstitious. Generally, the word "supernatural" does not make any sense in today's language, whereas "miracle narrative" (or "legend") is a specific genre of text with its specific code of meaning. We elaborated on this in other threads. |
|
12 Apr 14 - 05:29 PM (#3618013) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Big Al Whittle empiricism is only way of explaining stuff. just like Freudian analysis is one way of explaining the human psyche. they require an act of faith just as much as any other belief system. |
|
12 Apr 14 - 06:25 PM (#3618028) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Jack the Sailor I posted the link because I thought folks here might like it. I had no intention to argue about it. |
|
12 Apr 14 - 07:17 PM (#3618045) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Steve Shaw Better write: whom no-one has ever seen, otherwise your statement is correct, and I have no reason to modify mine. Sigh. As I've mentioned to more than one person before, it would be a very good idea to refrain from trying to correct my use of English. In the matter to hand you are wrong. There will come a time when the ludicrous "whom" will, thankfully, disappear. The sooner the better. In the meantime, be assured that my non-use of this horror was entirely intentional. Readers may also care to note that my response to Wacko's childish, sweary post has been removed. God knows why. |
|
12 Apr 14 - 07:44 PM (#3618053) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: pdq Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 10 Apr 14 - 07:59 PM So, Jack, what is the guy saying, and what do you think of what he's saying? Make a commitment here, not just a link. Even ignorant people can make links, thereby avoiding the pratfalls of arguing from ignorance. -Joe Offer- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Jack the Sailor - PM Date: 12 Apr 14 - 04:25 PM "Make a commitment here, not just a link." Sure thing! since you asked! Fuck on off to the corset shop you arrogant, ignorant, rude, lying piece of shit. |
|
12 Apr 14 - 08:01 PM (#3618057) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Steve Shaw Thank you, pdq. I think my response, now deleted, was along the lines of telling Wacko that he had been insulting Joe as well as me. Why anyone would want to have deleted that, and not Jack's horrible sweary bit, is anyone's guess. Unless Wacko is the uncle of one of the mods, of course. :-) |
|
13 Apr 14 - 04:26 AM (#3618135) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,Musket Well I'll be a monkey's uncle........ |
|
13 Apr 14 - 04:44 AM (#3618141) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Big Al Whittle if you'll be a monkey's uncle i'll be the dogs bollocks, my friend and together we will walk the road until we reach the end |
|
13 Apr 14 - 07:16 AM (#3618174) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,Grishka Al (12 Apr 14 - 05:29 PM), there are matters of science, and distinct matters of religious faith. It is an error, shared by adherents and critics, to think that religion was or is originally concerned with explaining the physical world. Steve (12 Apr 14 - 07:17 PM), you have a gift of interpreting statements in the wrong context. My remark was not intended to correct your English. In fact I am aware - but not overly ashamed - of the fact that my own (non-native) English is far from perfect. |
|
13 Apr 14 - 11:24 AM (#3618255) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Steve Shaw Context? It seemed plain to me that you were telling me I should have used "whom" where I'd (correctly) used "who". Now, as I had done when I posted about it, I've reviewed the whole context and that's how it still seems to me. However, if you didn't mean it, you didn't mean it. |
|
13 Apr 14 - 11:33 AM (#3618259) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Steve Shaw Though I do acknowledge my inconsistency in resorting to "whom" in the next phrase! I suppose my conditioning over the decades has led me to view that particular usage as slightly more elegant, though I'm still waiting for the hateful thing to die away for good. In spite of the fact that I think I've done no wrong, on reflection I suppose I should have redrafted the whole bloody thing. |
|
13 Apr 14 - 03:05 PM (#3618323) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: BrendanB The use of 'who' as the subject of a sentence and 'whom' as the object seems entirely reasonable to me. Obviously language is dynamic and changes over time but I suspect that one man's idiosyncratic view of English will not be enough to cause the atrophication (is that a word?) of 'whom' in the forseeable future. |
|
13 Apr 14 - 03:23 PM (#3618328) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Big Al Whittle I would have gone for atrophy in that context. Grishka - we are all applying tools of analysis to our surroundings - wouldn't you agree. beliefs in the rain god, or the latest outpouring from our universities is just a happenstance of birth, |
|
13 Apr 14 - 03:37 PM (#3618330) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: BrendanB Yes Al, but I needed a noun and 'atrophy' is a verb. ( Oh Lord, I am wading in pedantry!) |
|
13 Apr 14 - 03:50 PM (#3618336) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Lighter Tyson is right in principle, but he let the ad libs get a little out of hand. *First-person* eyewitness testimony, while admittedly unreliable, is usually more worthy of investigation than is the nth-person earwitness testimony (i.e., rumor) that he suggests is almost identical. That's why the cops take you seriously when you report seeing a burglary across the street, but not if you call to say you just heard about one from a friend of a friend. Tyson has mixed apples and oranges, a serious reasoning no-no. |
|
13 Apr 14 - 04:29 PM (#3618350) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,Grishka Steve (13 Apr 14 - 11:24 AM), that is the problem that you do not see the context. In this case, it said: "Your conclusion has no flaws beyond grammar." Al, my point was that beliefs in rain gods etc. are often misinterpreted by people from modern societies who are used to different ways of thinking (not only believing!) and therefore of interpreting language (however exact and literal its translation). Lighter, I think the example of wrong rumo(u)r does illustrate the effect well enough: at least one person in the chain must have got it wrong, and the more of them are involved, the higher the probability that it happens. Each is an ear witness to the previous one, processing the news by interpretation. Interpreting news (in other words guesswork) can be a very useful skill - we just should not mistake it for certainty. |
|
13 Apr 14 - 04:46 PM (#3618357) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Steve Shaw Eye witness is a vital tool in the propagation of religious belief. Well done Tyson for highlighting its fatal deficiency as evidence, and pooh-pooh to the originator of this thread for failing to spot that it militates superbly against his belief system. |
|
13 Apr 14 - 07:16 PM (#3618412) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Ed T Don't argue from a sole purpose of arguing with someone, anyone. |
|
13 Apr 14 - 07:28 PM (#3618416) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Lighter An eyewitness reports what he sees or thinks he sees. Once the report is filtered through another mind and confidently though incorrectly repeated, the information in the original report has decayed or been enhanced. Each repetition is almost sure to worsen the problem. In such circumstances, the original eyewitness report, accurate or not, is the only one of possible evidentiary interest. An eyewitness report to police is enough to prompt an investigation. But Tyson is talking, of course, not about police reports but about science. Modern science relies on calibrated instruments and mathematics far more than on startled eyewitnesses to the unexpected. Outside of science, unreliable eyewitness testimony is often all that one has to go on. |
|
13 Apr 14 - 07:32 PM (#3618417) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Ed T "An eyewitness reports what he sees or thinks he sees. Once the report is filtered through another mind and confidently though incorrectly repeated, the information in the original report has decayed or been enhanced. Each repetition is almost sure to worsen the problem." There goes all, or at least most, of the worlds holy books. Do you know what box you have just opened with that statement, pard? ;) |
|
13 Apr 14 - 07:51 PM (#3618420) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Steve Shaw No-one is saying that an eye-witness is lying, or is unreliable, or is wishfully thinking, or is deluded. But, unless there is solid corroboration for their account, and not just from other eye-witnesses, we assume that they are all those things. That sounds rather unkind, but that is precisely how good science works. And good science is what has got us where we are. |
|
13 Apr 14 - 07:59 PM (#3618422) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: pdq "...good science is what has got us where we are" ~ Steve Shaw Er, are you sure that statement came out as positive as you intended??? |
|
13 Apr 14 - 08:18 PM (#3618429) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Steve Shaw In general, you'll find that what I've said is what I intended to say, and I do try to not use big words, so as to make what I say comprehensible even to people of rather limited ability. I can get very bad mannered at times, but I don't, at least, have the bad manners to give people mental processing puzzles to solve before they can understand my posts. |
|
14 Apr 14 - 02:30 AM (#3618476) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity "...good science is what has got us where we are" ~ Steve Shaw At best, good science catalogs and chronicles HOW we got here, WHAT comprises 'Here', and can we explore more....because there's more to 'Here' than meets the eye.....ya' think?? GfS |
|
14 Apr 14 - 06:22 AM (#3618543) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Musket There's less to you than meets the eye me old Goofus.... |
|
14 Apr 14 - 07:26 AM (#3618568) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Steve Shaw No, that is not what I think. |
|
14 Apr 14 - 11:44 AM (#3618675) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Steve Shaw: "No, that is not what I think." There you go again...trying to work without any tools! GfS |
|
14 Apr 14 - 12:35 PM (#3618691) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,sciencegeek |
|
14 Apr 14 - 12:55 PM (#3618697) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,sciencegeek I really do fail to see how some folks missed the point of NDT's little talking points. 1. if you don't know something, just admit it... making up a story out of whole cloth to explain what you don't understand is NOT science and is most likely not true. 2. so called "eye witness" accounts are fallible and not acceptable "proof" in science. Only lawyers can assert otherwise! Which goes al long way to explaining why so many innocent people end up behind bars.. waiting for scientific evidence to free them. The UFO part of his talk was to point out that the U stands for unidentified... which should be self-explanatory... but... The phone chain was to illustrate that even in the second grade, we are taught that messages/stories get garbled in oral transmission. Which is very much the "folk process" in oral traditions. What I liked best in his talk was how science deals with the unknown and you had better be comfortable with NOT having all the answers if you want to work in science. The whole point of scientific method is to reach better understanding by asking better and better questions... because the answers lead to more questions. |
|
14 Apr 14 - 04:08 PM (#3618746) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link So when you do experiments you verify the results with something other than observing....ie ,an eye witness report! Maybe we can't trust scientists when we are told that something has been observed! What was it Dawkins said......evolution has been observed, it,s just that there was no one there to see it...! By contrast the New Testament ,which was mostly written within the lifetimes of those involved, reports numerous witnesses to the resurrection. That, of course will be gainsayed but deep time has certainly not been observed. |
|
14 Apr 14 - 04:18 PM (#3618750) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Jack the Sailor Pete, the difference it peer review and _replication_ of the results. If Jesus were to go to Cambridge this weekend have himself crucified Friday and walk out of the morgue Sunday morning with Dr. Hawking et al as witnesses, there would be far fewer atheists in the UK. I think maybe it would just be Steve Shaw and Musket and Musket would have doubts. |
|
14 Apr 14 - 05:16 PM (#3618773) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Dave the Gnome Steve Shaw and Musket and Musket So good they named him twice? :D tG |
|
14 Apr 14 - 05:24 PM (#3618779) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Jack the Sailor How lazy do you have to be to be reading a 16 word sentence and stop at the 13th word? |
|
14 Apr 14 - 05:31 PM (#3618782) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Dave the Gnome Sorry Jack, you are just not making sense any more. I read the whole thing again and it still says Steve Shaw and Musket and Musket. Can you save some for me please. :D |
|
14 Apr 14 - 05:34 PM (#3618786) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Dave the Gnome In fact, I will take a leaf from Ed T and GfS's book. Here is something that will make more sense. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nebe1zuEtbc Enjoy. DtG |
|
14 Apr 14 - 06:29 PM (#3618807) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Jack the Sailor I think your cat must be sleeping on the right side of your iPad DtG. |
|
14 Apr 14 - 06:42 PM (#3618811) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Richard Bridge The grammar was right. No comma before "and". Please include me as a doubter. BTW, the gospels are likely to have been written before 70AD - but not much. So those writing them would have been unborn (or infantile enough to have no useful recollection) before the crucifiction (emphasis on the "fiction") or so old by the time of writing that their memories would have been iffy. |
|
14 Apr 14 - 06:45 PM (#3618813) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Steve Shaw If Jesus were to go to Cambridge this weekend have himself crucified Friday and walk out of the morgue Sunday morning with Dr. Hawking et al as witnesses, there would be far fewer atheists in the UK. I think maybe it would just be Steve Shaw and Musket and Musket would have doubts. Don't bother nit-picking him on this one, Dave. It's typical Wacko shallow, useless gibberish. He thinks he's being funny, or witty, or something. Let the poor fellow be is my advice. |
|
15 Apr 14 - 02:49 AM (#3618883) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Steve: "If Jesus were to go to Cambridge this weekend have himself crucified Friday and walk out of the morgue Sunday morning with Dr. Hawking et al as witnesses,...." Hey, if Dr. Hawking just 'made up a story' about being a witness, and had 10 more friends who 'went along with the story', and wrote fictional accounts of it, and conspired to bullshit everyone about it,..but it was all just something that they made up, ...do you think Dr. Hawking and colleagues would all allow themselves to choose to be put to death, or renounce the story, if it was a phony story???? Something to consider.... GfS |
|
15 Apr 14 - 03:02 AM (#3618887) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Dave the Gnome The grammar was right. No comma before "and". Sorry, Richard, if used to separate two clauses in a sentence, such as a list of two people followed by a statement about one of those people, then the comma before the and should be there. Look it up if you don't believe me. Besides, what do rules matter when I am obviously taking the piss out of good old Jack? I would rather help my Uncle Jack off a horse than help my uncle jack off horse :-) Cheers DtG |
|
15 Apr 14 - 04:38 AM (#3618906) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Musket I get mentioned twice because, as Keith A Hole of Hertford keeps reminding us, I'm fucking important..... Are you sure I'd be less prone to be an atheist in those circumstances Jack? Thirty thousand people at Wembley last Sunday who would testify that Sheffield United are a football team and play good football. They can see it, witness it and still get it wrong.... Witness all the hugely enjoyable "weeping Madonnas" and people who see the little baby Jesus in their toast or teacup, and take photos to prove the legitimacy of their claim. A bit like pete saying there were witnesses to events in The Old Testament that physically didn't and couldn't happen, but that is the basis of his mindset. Delusion is a funny old thing, and Prof Hawking seeing something isn't good enough for me. He is on medication for starters. When I had a pretty bad accident many years ago, the morphine based painkillers would have had me sign the Methodist pledge if you had handed it to me and said it was a good thing. |
|
15 Apr 14 - 07:31 PM (#3619222) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Steve Shaw I had a Tramadol six weeks just after Christmas. Well, four weeks on it and hallucinating and two weeks' agony weaning meself off it. Bloody doctors! One day I'll review all my posts from that horrible period to see whether I was more affected than I thought. I didn't pretend to be a homophobe or history-denier, did I, Musket? Did I think I was an Owls fan? Nah, can't face the said review... |
|
15 Apr 14 - 09:40 PM (#3619246) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Jack the Sailor We all knew you were on drugs Shaw. You said something polite. |
|
15 Apr 14 - 09:48 PM (#3619247) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Ed T Tramadol for 6 weeks = no alcohol for 6 weeks. |
|
16 Apr 14 - 07:41 AM (#3619288) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Quite so, gfs. Also there are many accounts of history that are accepted as factual despite there being far less mss and of later to the event date. The difference is that the gospels witness to the miraculous, and atheists a priori dismiss such as impossible. ..... Not to mention, not wanting to be accountable to a higher power!...... But they have no problem, and indeed, have no other option, than to accept the impossible when it comes to origins. But as scientists they can live with that uncertainty! Excuse me if that sounds like a cop out. The mockery of the creation position really only confirms where they place their faith..........despite lack of evidence. |
|
16 Apr 14 - 08:00 AM (#3619302) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Musket The only higher power I am answerable to is Mrs Musket. That'll do for going on with if it's all the same to you. Just think pete. If you don't want to be answerable to a fantasy, you don't have to. Just think of the hedonistic fun you could have! Lent or no Lent, you can order pork scratchings with your pint. Anyway, back to stretching exercises. This is the time of year when folk clubs have to put up with my Jesus on a rubber cross impersonation. Steve, you still owe me for that Sheffield Wednesday season ticket you asked me to get you.... |
|
16 Apr 14 - 09:11 AM (#3619334) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Steve Shaw Hey, that can't be right. The hallucinations were all pleasant! |
|
16 Apr 14 - 09:15 AM (#3619335) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Greg F. Excuse me if that sounds like a cop out. Its not a "cop out" -- its gibberish. |
|
16 Apr 14 - 09:20 AM (#3619338) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Steve Shaw Tramadol for 6 weeks = no alcohol for 6 weeks. Not quite as simple as that. That's the theory, but if you're a heavy drinker on Tramadol it's dangerous to suddenly stop taking either. I don't dispense medical advice but I just thought I'd mention that. You need to stop drinking before you start Tramadol. Believe me, you're ten times better off carrying on drinking and just taking paracetamol. Tramadol is evil stuff. |
|
16 Apr 14 - 09:44 AM (#3619360) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Keith A of Hertford "Or, if a gentle person tries to explain why he believes in creation." Why do you have to be so nasty? He is never nasty in return. Just explain why you disagree and drop all the ridicule, vilification and abuse. |
|
16 Apr 14 - 10:33 AM (#3619380) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Jack the Sailor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramadol |
|
16 Apr 14 - 11:38 AM (#3619409) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Stringsinger The argument here suffers from the logical fallacy "an appeal to authority". Personally, I prefer to listen to every argument and make up my own mind based on my experience. One who sets him/herself up as an "authority" on any subject needs to be mercilessly dissected and if pedantic or rigid, rejected. What some call ignorance, as I have found out, is in the brain of the beholder. Beware of "authority" and "dogma". |
|
16 Apr 14 - 12:57 PM (#3619455) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Steve Shaw Never nasty in return? he is one of the worst abusers of science and scientists I've ever come across, he waits a few weeks then trots out the same old ignorant balderdash about dino soft tissue/radioisotope dating/Darwinists/evolutionists/creationist scientists again and again. He never picks up a single idea from all the lovely people here who patiently waste their time indulging him. He is wilful ignorance with a smile on its face personified. I don't call that not nasty. I call it nasty. |
|
16 Apr 14 - 01:10 PM (#3619462) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Keith A of Hertford He is never nasty back to you. |
|
16 Apr 14 - 02:44 PM (#3619492) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Steve Shaw Yes he bloody is. I'm a biological scientist, for Christ's sake. |
|
16 Apr 14 - 02:54 PM (#3619494) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Steve: "Yes he bloody is. I'm a biological scientist, for Christ's sake." So which of those two are you alluding to be the 'higher authority'?? ...the 'fact'(?) that you are a 'biological scientist'...or 'for Christ's sake?? GfS |
|
16 Apr 14 - 03:01 PM (#3619497) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Pete from seven stars link: "But as scientists they can live with that uncertainty! Excuse me if that sounds like a cop out. The mockery of the creation position really only confirms where they place their faith..........despite lack of evidence." Is the 'Big Bang' over yet??...or are we still in the 'Bang' part? GfS |
|
16 Apr 14 - 03:22 PM (#3619504) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Jack the Sailor "Yes he bloody is. I'm a biological scientist, for Christ's sake. " HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA |
|
16 Apr 14 - 04:16 PM (#3619517) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Well, at least it's within the topic! GfS |
|
16 Apr 14 - 07:08 PM (#3619593) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Steve Shaw Wacko, I know the truth always hurts you. I am indeed a biological scientist, B.Sc ARCS, inconvenient to you as it may be... So, apart from being a complete twat, what are you? :-) |
|
16 Apr 14 - 07:11 PM (#3619595) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Jack the Sailor A bachelor's degree doesn't make you a scientist. If you were a scientist, you would know that. |
|
16 Apr 14 - 07:20 PM (#3619601) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Ed T My claim is that I wrote all plays attributed to Shakespeare? :) |
|
16 Apr 14 - 07:22 PM (#3619602) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Steve Shaw Yeah Ed, but I was Shakespeare's scientific advisor... |
|
16 Apr 14 - 07:23 PM (#3619605) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Steve Shaw Or adviser...take yer pick, apparently... |
|
16 Apr 14 - 07:25 PM (#3619606) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Steve Shaw A bachelor's degree doesn't make you a scientist. If you were a scientist, you would know that. Sour grapes, Wackeroo? |
|
17 Apr 14 - 01:30 AM (#3619667) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,Musket I suppose that when people try to take their hobby out of its setting, it can look absurd. Witness the days when Dungeons and Dragons aficionados dressed up as warlocks and elves and tried getting served in pubs.... The attempts to find relevance for fantasy in trying to find a place for superstition and fairy stories in the realm of scientific discovery would be rather funny if it weren't so obstructive. In order to gain better understanding of what I am involved with, my office is based at a large teaching hospital. Since January, three court orders to restrain parents who due to beliefs refuse to allow their children blood transfusions. This by the way is a normal city with dwindling congregations and no sectarian issues. Not known for anything holy, more known for social reform and chip shops. Keep games in the playground and all is well. Bring them onto the street and you get in the way of pedestrians walking their dog. |
|
17 Apr 14 - 03:32 AM (#3619681) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: akenaton The "pack" are coming unstuck it seems....:00 Steve, having a bunch of letters after your name, does not make you a sensible, reasonable, person? Some of the wisest people, who were the biggest benefit to our little community, had very little formal education. But they sure knew lots about life. |
|
17 Apr 14 - 08:15 AM (#3619687) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Musket I can see the bit about lack of education, but I'm struggling with the wise and knowing about life bits. |
|
17 Apr 14 - 10:05 AM (#3619722) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Steve Shaw Ah yes, the University of Life. I once worked on Radcliffe Parks Dept, looking after Ainsworth bowling green and park, with a bloke who constantly belittled my university education, saying that he had that rare thing called Common Sense that no number of professors could ever impart to me. 18 months later he'd finally drunk himself to death. |
|
17 Apr 14 - 10:22 AM (#3619725) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST All Vietnamese walk in single file. I saw one yesterday and he was walking in single file. There ya go. |
|
17 Apr 14 - 01:11 PM (#3619779) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Stringsinger "Common sense" can sometimes be misleading. We, as a species, are all capable of different degrees of delusion, hard-wired into our brains. "Common sense" is best accepted when it is objectively and scientifically verifiable. We are all ignorant about something but to argue is often to question what is accepted and that can be interpreted by authoritarian types as ignorance. The antidote to rigidity is to keep an open mind so long as your brain doesn't fall out. I don't think I have to keep an open mind, however, about slavery, fascism, abuse or war. I'm opposed to all of them and haven't heard any reasonable arguments that could cause me to change my mind. |
|
17 Apr 14 - 01:36 PM (#3619786) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,Eliza Steve, I've had that thrown at me a few times over the years. "You people with so-called education and letters after your name, you haven't a clue what the world is really like... no common sense... I was schooled in the University of life...blah blah blah." There isn't an answer to it, and I have an idea it may stem from resentment at their own lack of educational success. After all, everyone had the same educational opportunities. While they were out dancing and living it up, I was studying hard and writing hundreds of essays. Not to mention exams, tutorials, seminars, and then after graduation, professional studies. Yet I do feel I have a great deal of common sense too - it's a quality I value. One can be an academic and sensible at the same time! |
|
17 Apr 14 - 01:50 PM (#3619790) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Jack the Sailor "Ah yes, the University of Life. I once worked on Radcliffe Parks Dept, looking after Ainsworth bowling green and park, with a bloke who constantly belittled my university education, saying that he had that rare thing called Common Sense that no number of professors could ever impart to me. 18 months later he'd finally drunk himself to death. " Anyone care to analyze this for evidence of cause and effect? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! |
|
17 Apr 14 - 02:09 PM (#3619792) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Musket I used to work with a bloke called Lol. Any relation perchance Jack? I suppose I can laugh at both ends of the spectrum. I never went to university, no batchelors or traffic cones in halls of residence or any of that malarkey, but I confuse the system slightly by a couple of post graduate items all the same. Not that many people teaching at a university who never went to one for that matter, but I do a bit here and there for a medical deanery. My common sense? I don't have any. Never have had. Drank and shagged my way through the first forty years and tried to make up for it since. No. No morals, no lessons to learn. Just bits of our individual pasts that make us what we are. Some of us appreciate decent football and nice sounding instruments. Some mistake league position for skill and play a gob iron. |
|
17 Apr 14 - 03:50 PM (#3619819) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Lighter > One can be an academic and sensible at the same time! Yeah, but take it from me, it ain't easy. |
|
17 Apr 14 - 05:20 PM (#3619845) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,saulgoldie I tawt I taw an UFO! I DID, I DID taw an UFO! Oh, wait. It's not unidentified; it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster, blessed be he. Saul |
|
17 Apr 14 - 06:10 PM (#3619865) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity In the movie 'Rebel Without a Cause', Dennis Hopper had a line, as they were getting in their car...It may apply(but not to you or your last post, someone else's)...."Shut your mouth before your guts run out." GfS |
|
17 Apr 14 - 06:24 PM (#3619869) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Bill D Because I have been very busy and had to be out of town for 3 days, I have posted very little the last 3-4 weeks. I have studiously avoided this thread, as I have entirely too many things I could say. (Not that anyone really misses my erudite contributions ☺) I'd be caught up in it and lose sleep. Ok... carry on. |
|
17 Apr 14 - 06:45 PM (#3619873) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Steve Shaw Some of us appreciate decent football and nice sounding instruments. Some mistake league position for skill and play a gob iron. :-) |
|
17 Apr 14 - 06:47 PM (#3619874) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Steve Shaw "Ah yes, the University of Life. I once worked on Radcliffe Parks Dept, looking after Ainsworth bowling green and park, with a bloke who constantly belittled my university education, saying that he had that rare thing called Common Sense that no number of professors could ever impart to me. 18 months later he'd finally drunk himself to death. " Anyone care to analyze this for evidence of cause and effect? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! Heheh. Anyone care to analyse what this Wacko post actually means? :-) |
|
17 Apr 14 - 06:50 PM (#3619875) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Jack the Sailor >>"Heheh. Anyone care to analyse what this Wacko post actually means? :-) <<< You have asked that dozens of times. No one ever answers. It's because you are the only one dumb enough not to know. |
|
17 Apr 14 - 06:53 PM (#3619877) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Lighter So if I identify a flying object as obviously an alien spacecraft, it's not a "UFO" and nobody's interested. Makes about as much sense as anything else around here. |
|
17 Apr 14 - 09:45 PM (#3619911) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Steve Shaw You have asked that dozens of times. No one ever answers. It's because you are the only one dumb enough not to know. Hardly, Wackeroo. I asked the question once about one specific post. I can't have asked it dozens of times because I hadn't even read the post about which I asked the question until just now. You really are a shallow and useless fellow, aren't you, Wackers. Would you care to perhaps bugger off and ride bikes? |
|
17 Apr 14 - 10:25 PM (#3619921) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Jack the Sailor Lighter, I think the Nobel Committee would notice. And CNN. |
|
17 Apr 14 - 11:07 PM (#3619934) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: GUEST,An Actual Scientist yes, let's look at cause and effect... promise a laugh. |
|
18 Apr 14 - 07:29 AM (#3619971) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Dave the Gnome It's because you are the only one dumb enough not to know. No, Sorry Jack, I have no idea either. What has cause and effect got to do with anything? Are you suggesting that the poor man drank himself to death because of something Steve did? If so that is a ridiculous claim to make and made, I would guess, purely from ignorance. DtG |
|
18 Apr 14 - 08:21 AM (#3619987) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Lighter They (sorry not to be more precise) once asked agnostic science writer Martin Gardner if he was "the world's biggest skeptic." Gardner replied, "I doubt it." |
|
18 Apr 14 - 08:35 AM (#3619995) Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance From: Lighter I said if *I* identified it, not a bunch of close-minded scientists. There's one now! Gotta go! |