Aren't Science vs. Creation Debates......rather pointless?

[maestroanth]

Don't get me wrong, I do love watching/reading these debates, but for all intensive purposes no one really learns anything new from Science vs. Creation debates. I mean compared to a debate with two theoretical physicists arguing whether information is lost in a black hole, I learn tremendously more: how entropy is information, how Hawking radiation exists through quantum entanglement, plus much much more... What I get from Science vs. Creation debates is nothing new except on strategies of how to come up with clever semantics to BS people.  

I just hate it when people debate really about anything and then one debater boils their argument down to "semantics" which at that point I just view them as the un-admitted loser of the debate.

Also, it also begs the question, then why do we have these debates (particularly at places like Science festivals)?  I think it's just mankind's desire for drama.  Or in other words, it's the same reason why we watch cheesy soap operas, reality shows, or talent shows where the judge bitches out the contestant for being so worthless and such......is why we still have Atheist vs. Creationist debates.  At least I know that is why I  watch them 

Anyway, what are your thoughts of this?

[PerennialPhilosophy]

Don't get me wrong, I do love watching/reading these debates, but for all intensive purposes no one really learns anything new from Science vs. Creation debates. I mean compared to a debate with two theoretical physicists arguing whether information is lost in a black hole, I learn tremendously more: how entropy is information, how Hawking radiation exists through quantum entanglement, plus much much more... What I get from Science vs. Creation debates is nothing new except on strategies of how to come up with clever semantics to BS people.  

I just hate it when people debate really about anything and then one debater boils their argument down to "semantics" which at that point I just view them as the un-admitted loser of the debate.

Also, it also begs the question, then why do we have these debates (particularly at places like Science festivals)?  I think it's just mankind's desire for drama.  Or in other words, it's the same reason why we watch cheesy soap operas, reality shows, or talent shows where the judge bitches out the contestant for being so worthless and such......is why we still have Atheist vs. Creationist debates.  At least I know that is why I  watch them 

Anyway, what are your thoughts of this?

Saying we don't learn anything from this is a big statement about epistemology. What do you consider actual learning?
Also, semantics are useful when debating. Often people disagree because they have two different understandings of what a word means. I would recommend reading Phaedrus by Plato for a good look at how important that can be.

[Ivan Denisovich]

I would say that "debates" with believers in general are pointless. You will hear the same old shit again and chance of convincing your oponent are slim at best. Time wasted on such "discussion" could be used on expanding one knowledge.

[PerennialPhilosophy]

I would say that "debates" with believers in general are pointless. You will hear the same old shit again and chance of convincing your oponent are slim at best. Time wasted on such "discussion" could be used on expanding one knowledge.

What is knowledge? Is there knowledge about things not physical(ethics) or is knowledge only knowledge if its correct measurements of the scientific processes that are our experience? Because people refuse to be convinced, does not make it not worth it to do. It is worth it to change one mind even if it takes one thousand tries.

[maestroanth]

Saying we don't learn anything from this is a big statement about epistemology. What do you consider actual learning?
Also, semantics are useful when debating. Often people disagree because they have two different understandings of what a word means. I would recommend reading Phaedrus by Plato for a good look at how important that can be.

Well, by semantics I mean when it doesn't add value to the argument.  For example, recently I was debating with a guy whether if perfect pitch is a 'learned ability' or an ability people are simply 'born-with it'. I have perfect pitch and I learned it about 13 years ago as a teenager and my skill actually exceeded many of those that were 'born-with-it'.  Anyway, so my argument was simple: Since obviously our notation system is a man-made system, and not made by nature, obviously there is no way to be 'born-with-it'.

My point is that he didn't have a good argument so he attacked the semantics by saying that 'young children don't learn it, they simply have exposure to it early' which pissed me off because really? You say tomato, I say tom-ah-to, it's the same fucking thing we're both referring to. So I didn't reply and tallied it as my victory since no one will ever admit defeat over the internet.  Likewise, I feel like a lot religious people go the same rutty route in their arguments.....

And......I already gave examples of what I consider as actual learning. From what I can tell of epistemology in a quick google search, I feel the same about that concept too. Arguing over what constitutes a 'justified belief' vs 'opinion' is just silly and distracting 

(BTW, please don't let this stray off topic about perfect pitch in future replies...thanks! )

---

I would say that "debates" with believers in general are pointless. You will hear the same old shit again and chance of convincing your oponent are slim at best. Time wasted on such "discussion" could be used on expanding one knowledge.

Ya, that pretty much summarizes how I feel and I always feel guilty when I click on a 'Dawkins vs. some Christian Guy' debate over the calculus tutorial which is 100000 times more interesting but requires focus.  - it's like eating ice cream when I should be eating a salad, ;P

[rexbeccarox]

Dude... what's an "intensive purpose"?

[Ivan Denisovich]

What is knowledge?

That is knowledge. Though I in this case by expanding knowledge I meant reading books.

Because people refuse to be convinced, does not make it not worth it to do. It is worth it to change one mind even if it takes one thousand tries.

Says you. I'm not interested in talking with those who think they know know the Truth.

[Jenny A]

If you mean arguing with people who believe as a matter of faith or dogma is pointless, yes it is. Meaningful debate suggests both parties are rationally evaluating evidence. Creationists regularly admit that they are not. That doesn't leave any room for debate.

The only purpose I see to debating whether creationism is a possible possition is convincing persons actually evaluating the evidence.

[Alex K]

The Nye-Ham debate might have exposed some kids there for the first time to a straight representation of how evolution works and what it is.

[drfuzzy]

---

Saying we don't learn anything from this is a big statement about epistemology. What do you consider actual learning?
Also, semantics are useful when debating. Often people disagree because they have two different understandings of what a word means. I would recommend reading Phaedrus by Plato for a good look at how important that can be.

---

---

Well, by semantics I mean when it doesn't add value to the argument.

---

 For example, recently I was debating with a guy whether if perfect pitch is a 'learned ability' or an ability people are simply 'born-with it'. I have perfect pitch and I learned it about 13 years ago as a teenager and my skill actually exceeded many of those that were 'born-with-it'.  Anyway, so my argument was simple: Since obviously our notation system is a man-made system, and not made by nature, obviously there is no way to be 'born-with-it'.

---

My point is that he didn't have a good argument so he attacked the semantics by saying that 'young children don't learn it, they simply have exposure to it early' which pissed me off because really? You say tomato, I say tom-ah-to, it's the same fucking thing we're both referring to. So I didn't reply and tallied it as my victory since no one will ever admit defeat over the internet.  Likewise, I feel like a lot religious people go the same rutty route in their arguments.....

And......I already gave examples of what I consider as actual learning. From what I can tell of epistemology in a quick google search, I feel the same about that concept too. Arguing over what constitutes a 'justified belief' vs 'opinion' is just silly and distracting 

(BTW, please don't let this stray off topic about perfect pitch in future replies...thanks! )

---

---

---

I would say that "debates" with believers in general are pointless. You will hear the same old shit again and chance of convincing your oponent are slim at best. Time wasted on such "discussion" could be used on expanding one knowledge.

---

---

Ya, that pretty much summarizes how I feel and I always feel guilty when I click on a 'Dawkins vs. some Christian Guy' debate over the calculus tutorial which is 100000 times more interesting but requires focus.  - it's like eating ice cream when I should be eating a salad, ;P  

---

Now, I wonder why you didn't want this thread to stray off topic into perfect pitch? Is is possibly because you did no research into the subject and didn't know what the fuck you were pontificating about? I have a doctorate in music. Perfect/absolute pitch studies have been quite popular for the last thirty years or so.  In a nutshell, it has been found that the vast majority of humans have the ability to identify pitches, but if they don't have cognitive labels to hang that knowledge on early - while they are forming language - the ability is almost never gained in adulthood.  There have been studies on the curricula that attempt to teach it, but no results that rule out a pre-existing ability gained in an early life environment.  
http://discovermagazine.com/2001/dec/featbiology    Diana Deutsch is the current leader for cognitive tonality studies.
"Certain genes may help some people acquire perfect pitch more easily than others, but Deutsch's findings suggest that almost anyone can learn to label notes—provided they start young. Children who don't learn to do it by the time they learn the rudiments of language may never gain the ability."
It's also clearly understood - - dozens of studies - - that tonal language speakers develop perfect pitch at a much higher rate than speakers of non-tonal languages.  http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/05/us/stu...guage.html
'What it means to me is that people have a very accurate memory for musical pitch,'' said Dr. Daniel Levitin, a cognitive psychologist at McGill University in Montreal who has studied perfect pitch. Louis Svard gives a 2013 overview of absolute pitch studies here: http://www.themusiciansbrain.com/?p=190

My younger brother has absolute pitch at a very high level. A door can squeak and he can tell you what pitch it was. He clearly had the predisposition, but gained that skill by listening to me press piano keys and name the notes. I have it at a much lower level than he does, because I was 4 years old before I started assigning names to pitches.  

Since you apparently like to brag about how you are "better" than people who are "born-with-it", you will obviously trot out your superiority to someone else for the sake of stroking your own ego.  Perhaps if you read up on your subject, instead of pulling "facts" out of your ass, you might actually sound intelligent.