At this

(August 22, 2016 at 3:53 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(August 22, 2016 at 2:00 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Good Example of what I was talking about.... Just to clarify, I do think that science may support an a priori bias, the problem is when your a prior bias interferes with what the evidence leads to, and you are dismissing or cherry picking the evidence because of.

So we've got you here, bemoaning a priori biases against things that have no evidence even indicating them, and which you are incapable of providing the evidence that would make insisting on naturalism actually an a priori bias, essentially making your insistence on the supernatural anyway literally the thing you're going on about...

And we've got Steve on the other side, asserting that the supernatural actively resists scientific detection, meaning that there's no possible way that science could ever countenance the supernatural to begin with, let alone be biased against it.

Which is true? Shouldn't you two be sorting that out? And moreover, what exactly do you want from us, if you can't actually bring any evidence to bear?

While I have disagreed with Steve on some things in the past, I have no problem; nor see any problem with a disagreement here, that it should be singled out like this. In this case, just from things which Steve had said before, I didn't comment to him, because I think that we are actually closer together in thinking then you are surmising. I would agree, that things outside of the physical (or outside of the universe) are not actively available for scientific study. Similarly in biology, where the subject is capable of making choices, and able to allude study, I think that we can come to reasonable conclusions about a cause, without having the cause available.

Quote:You seem to just want to disqualify scientific ideas that disagree with you out of hand as biased, without either showing how a balanced view of the situation would include the thing you're asserting is being unfairly excluded, nor showing how you know that bias even exists, given that you don't know a single fucking person you're accusing, here. It's just a silencing tactic, right now.

To a large extent, I am speaking to general principles, again here, I think that it is better to work from the general, to the specific. I do think that from a naturalist standpoint, that evolution, despite the difficulties and improbabilities that are known; that must be overcome (in current theories), is pretty much the only reasonable option (some form of evolution anyway). By the way, I do think that the overall idea of evolution is unfalsifiable for these reasons.

As to not knowing anyone, or what bias's exist. If I misunderstand something or make an unwarranted assumption, I apologize, and feel free to correct me. I didn't say anything about disqualifying scientific ideas, because I disagree with them, but I do think that, it is not reasonable, to exclude something a priori, and then act like you are giving it a fair and balanced consideration.

(August 22, 2016 at 9:52 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(August 22, 2016 at 5:02 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I generally agree with what you said here (about the role and nature of scientific inquiry).

Let me ask you;  is what qualifies as "Science" determined by the conclusion or the method used?

It's determined by the whole process.  From the methodology used to the falsifiable conclusion to the repeatability of experiment to the peer-review.  Every step has to be followed properly for it to be science.

I would agree, that the conclusion needs to be falsifiable.   I think that repeatability is debatable, does the study in question only become science once it is repeated?   What about historical sciences.... what exactly is it you are saying needs to be repeatable?  

Peer review is an interesting one.   I only ever see it come up as definitional in this context.    What about those in the private sector or government that are not able to publish their work?  Does this disqualify their work as science.  Most of Einstein's work wasn't published, let a lone those who worked before peer review.  Are they not scientist?  And there have been a number of people, who have won Nobel Prizes in science, who's work was originally rejected by peer review publication. Why do you think, that peer review is critical to defining science?

Also, could you please expand on what you mean, by "every step has to be followed properly for it to be science".

(August 23, 2016 at 8:21 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 22, 2016 at 9:52 pm)Faith No More Wrote: It's determined by the whole process.  From the methodology used to the falsifiable conclusion to the repeatability of experiment to the peer-review.  Every step has to be followed properly for it to be science.

I would agree, that the conclusion needs to be falsifiable.   I think that repeatability is debatable, does the study in question only become science once it is repeated?   What about historical sciences.... what exactly is it you are saying needs to be repeatable?  

The means by which their conclusion was reached..... historians and archeologists aren;t immune to it or exempted from that condition.  You're obviously angling for some ludicrous "repeat of the moment in history" ...and maybe that's why you don't understand the criticism. If I do what you do, and use the same sources you do, we should arrive at the same conclusion, the same results. Further, that implications of your proposition which you -did not- explore would also yield confirming data.

If, for example..you are a "historian" that contends that there was a mass migration of hebrews through the desert, and that you have dug up archeological evidence of it, I should be able to go a digging as well...and find it.

If you're a "historian" that contends that christ was really real, and that you have some stories which demonstrate this, I should be able to read those same stories and come to the same conclusion.

Take for example Hovind Sr's "vapour canopy" idea, meant to account for Noah's Flood and the supposed longevity of the patriarchs. He can't hide behind it being a unique event and thus untestable - the proposal opens up a whole slew of real-world consequences, which can be tested and have been, and found farcically lacking. Check out Why Do People Laugh At Creationists for just a handful of reasons why.

(August 23, 2016 at 8:27 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(August 23, 2016 at 8:21 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I would agree, that the conclusion needs to be falsifiable.   I think that repeatability is debatable, does the study in question only become science once it is repeated?   What about historical sciences.... what exactly is it you are saying needs to be repeatable?  

The means by which their conclusion was reached..... historians and archeologists aren;t immune to it or exempted from that condition.

I would agree, that you should get the same results (within reason). Same conclusions may be a bit trickier on an inference, and I don't think that someone coming to a different conclusion base on the results, means that it is not science.

Quote: You're obviously angling for some ludicrous "repeat of the moment in history" ...and maybe that's why you don't understand the criticism.  If I do what you do, and use the same sources you do, we should arrive at the same conclusion, the same results.  Further, that implications of your proposition which you -did not- explore would also yield confirming data.

Just clarifying what is being said.

Quote:If, for example..you are a "historian" that contends that there was a mass migration of hebrews through the desert, and that you have dug up archeological evidence of it, I should be able to go a digging as well...and find it.

I don't think that they re-bury them when they are done, for another to find.

(August 23, 2016 at 8:52 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I would agree, that you should get the same results (within reason).  Same conclusions may be a bit trickier on an inference, and I don't think that someone coming to a different conclusion base on the results, means that it is not science.

Sure doesn't, but nobody said that it did, so I fail to see the relevance?  Perhaps you could provide an example of people reaching different conclusiuons...and then on the basis -of that- one of them claiming that the other is non science -because- of that?  

Quote:Just clarifying what is being said.

Quote:If, for example..you are a "historian" that contends that there was a mass migration of hebrews through the desert, and that you have dug up archeological evidence of it, I should be able to go a digging as well...and find it.

I don't think that they re-bury them when they are done, for another to find.

Since we're in the business of clarity, did you intentionally "misunderstand" those comments.....or....?

RoadRunner79 Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:When you use the same word with multiple meanings in the same sentence without making your meaning-switching explicit, you are equivocating and it's a form of lying when you do it deliberately and understand that it causes confusion. Since you complain about every third atheist complaining about this, you're aware. That just makes you a persistent liar.

Evolution is a fact. Gravity is a fact. The theory of evolution is a theory. The theory of gravity is a theory.

You don't have to be this stupid, it's a choice.

I thought what he meant was fairly clear from the context.  

Now if one is making that argument that in science; evolution is only a theory (in regards to scientific classification), and therefore without evidence.  This would be equivocation.  However on the other end, when someone claims that evolution is a fact (or classified as a scientific theory), I normally ask them to define what they mean by evolution.  One can equally equivocate everything under the umbrella of term "evolution" to deceptively equate fact under one meaning, with another meaning.  

One might also take issue with equating the word's theory with fact, if that is your intention.

Funny, other people don't have a problem not using the word in different ways in the same sentence. It's easy if you have the slightest care about not being ambiguous.

By this time you should understand the difference between 'evolution the fact' and 'evolution the theory'. Do you get this confused over 'gravity the fact' and 'gravity the theory'?

No one is getting 'fact' and 'theory' confused but the people with a stake in confusing them. No one, and I mean no one, on this thread is equivocating 'evolution is a fact' as 'the theory of evolution is a fact' except you and Steve. I wonder why that is?

@Esquilax:

Just to offer you a puzzle piece to this picture he is haphazardly trying to throw together in case you missed it, RoadRunner thinks scientific research is nothing more than "testimony" that requires "faith" to accept, on par with religious scripture in terms of quality of evidence for things (he stated so in another thread just DAYS ago). Considering how he is engaging in THIS discussion about scientific methodology, I'd say he's either a very dishonest or very confused individual, so...yeah, have fun with that. [emoji41]

*popcorn*

(August 23, 2016 at 9:06 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

RoadRunner79 Wrote:I thought what he meant was fairly clear from the context.  

Now if one is making that argument that in science; evolution is only a theory (in regards to scientific classification), and therefore without evidence.  This would be equivocation.  However on the other end, when someone claims that evolution is a fact (or classified as a scientific theory), I normally ask them to define what they mean by evolution.  One can equally equivocate everything under the umbrella of term "evolution" to deceptively equate fact under one meaning, with another meaning.  

One might also take issue with equating the word's theory with fact, if that is your intention.

Funny, other people don't have a problem not using the word in different ways in the same sentence. It's easy if you have the slightest care about not being ambiguous.

I would say that ambiguous would be more accurate than equivocating. But I still think the context was fairly clear.

Quote:By this time you should understand the difference between 'evolution the fact' and 'evolution the theory'. Do you get this confused over 'gravity the fact' and 'gravity the theory'?
No one is getting 'fact' and 'theory' confused but the people with a stake in confusing them. No one, and I mean no one, on this thread is equivocating 'evolution is a fact' as 'the theory of evolution is a fact' except you and Steve. I wonder why that is?

Ok.... I thought put a qualifier in there... perhaps you have a difficulty with ambiquity

SteveII Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:It is definitely not a component in the sense (universal common descent) you're implying. An organism could be found tomorrow completely unrelated to other life on earth, and it wouldn't affect the theory of evolution in the slightest. It would just mean life began more than once. It would mean there are two trees of life. Universal common descent is merely a probabilistic conclusion supported by the fact that we've yet to find life that is not genetically related to all other life.

It would be a wonderful find, even though it would almost certainly be unicellular, that would shed much light on the science of evolution and the origin of life.

Sorry, it is very much a component. It is assumed in just about every evolutionary experiment and conclusion every reached. Show me one area it is not assumed and would therefore not be detrimental to the theory if it were found to be incorrect.

Give an example where universal common descent was a necessary component of an evolutionary experiment. You're making a claim about necessary assumptions, you support it.