Also sprach ryan93

Post Reply New Topic

Given my particular life course, the question was really not a non sequitur, but a reality check on my perception of who you are and how your mind works, which is fairly central to where I am coming from going to.

Process first confirms my basic sense of you. Very early on I noticed that I and certain colleagues - generally the ones I had more chance of communicating, including a woman I shared an office with for some years - opted for process first, while certain others, including a colleague with whom I WOULD have shared an office had it come up but who later cut me dead, preferred conclusion first. I choose to labdel them Little-endian and us Big-endian.

My Big-endian officemate is an excellent scholar and good person all around - but as regards the issue of formalism and arguably prose style she and I differ much as you and I do.

While I would be happy to discuss these matters probably outside the public pages should you choose [there is much to say on the subject that might interest both of us], there is little point our debating the value of formalism. It is my contention that our distinct preferences in that area are innate traits. I can quarter-horse style do the formal thing for short distances - just as you probably leap over the syllogisms more often than shows here - but it is not natural or truly comfortable.

well, first, a layman who thinks he knows better than the experts on a certain field, is just an idiot, as simple as that.

well, methodology AND confirmation, not only that your conclusion has come through a method, but I believe that the conclusion must be verified, thus putting more trust towards a single individual over peer-revewing for whatever reason, doesn't make that much sense . By the way, the testing of hypothesis, and the developing of a theory (I pressume you are talking about a scientific theory, right?) is done collectively, not by a single individual.

Idiot yourself.

First off, I do NOT claim to outweigh the experts in a given field [though I will occasionally point out clearly flawed experimental procedure]. In linguistics - where frankly I am an expert by most proper definitions - I will weigh in.

Secondly - if I look at a yard full of grass and see ten feet away a four leaf clover, experience tells me it is probably there and I will NOT listen to the five people standing with me on the sidewalk who say it is not there.

Though if my wife tells me the rosebush ten feet away is in bloom with beautiful red roses I will believe her though I do not see them, since experience tells me I being slightlu Daltonized cannot spot red roses againd green rose leaves until I get within six feet.

Thirdly, I have seen from close up [including a stint helping to run one] what goes on with peer reviewed journals in real life to beieve the peer review process contributes to good science.

AND finally, I disagree - the team approach is NOT a prerequisite for creative science, which like all the arts - scientific progress / innovation IS an art - tends to be advanced by the individual, after which the teams come in and annotate and document. A team approach would not have prevented Chomsky, and would not that much have benefitted, let's say, Newton.

Teaching should not be indoctrination-that is the nub of what you're saying in THIS post.
Which is all fine and dandy, but it is a fine line.

And thats what you CLAIMED to be saying the post I was responding to. And I was all set to agree with you.
But on close inspection of your previous post it looks like you're in fact saying more than that.
The examples you villify as "indoctrination" are not examples of "indoctrination" at all.

"Banning evolutionists from classrooms"- you might as well ban teaching the multiplication tables from gradeschool math classes. Teaching evolution is no more "indoctrination" than teaching newton's theory of gravitation is "indoctrination". Its just basic science.

And talking about "big bangers"- as if they were tea baggers- just another faction- when the big bang is an accepted fact.

It seems to me that you were going well beyond your own point and in effect saying that each generation should be forced to reinvent the wheel. You cant go on to hybrid cars if you have to keep going back to reinventing the wheel.

naturalplastic - I do not ask much but I DO wish people would read me straight.

I went back to copy: I SAID:

Most of the Creation Science types [ignoring simple creationists, who are mostly harmless] to whose words I have been exposed are seriously inimical to the ideal of original thought. The Dogmatic Materialist evolutionists and Big Bangers [ignoring simple evolutionists who are mostly harmless] to whose words I have been exposed - mine own brother included - are very down on original thought.

The dogmatic non-thinkers, whatever their specific dogmata, in my opinion should not be allowed near a classroom or a school board, and have no business in Biology, Theology, Physics, Linguistics or any other science [properly understood].

Somebody gets up in class and explains the current theory of evolution - great, fine. Someone gets up in the classroom and explains the concept of Nirvana, great, fine. But when my brother goes ballistic if someone suggests anything but the standard CURRENT [sciunce is dynamic!] view of evolution, or Pastor Jack kicks you out if you ask him to defend the Rapture, or Professor Law fails you ifd you do not subscribe to HIS linguustic model - that is wrong fo wrong.

It is not the Big Bangers -and I do not talk about tea baggers] Its the DOGMATIC Big Bangers. Big Bang Domatists if you prefer that wording.

Disagree wherever you choose, - that is science. But disagree with what i REALLY say, not a misquote, Because THAT is science.

Let them discuss alternates if they have tangible evidence, or logical explanations. I don't hold entirely orthodox scientific views (definition of life being one), but I can back them up.

I state the conclusion, then give the proof.

This is the style of mathematics: First state the theorem to be proved. Then prove it concluding with the statement of the theorem (followed by Q.E.D. or some such).

In physics papers the tendency is to gather the evidence then state the tentative conclusion that the evidence supports. All conclusions in the physical sciences are tentative.

ruveyn

ruveyn -

thank you very. I had not throswn you the question, but the datum is not insignificant and gladly received.

Again [pleasantly for me] it is no surprise, fitting neatly into my growing sense of who you be. I have not gotten clear yet on whether you more closely match my brother C and my grampa E, or my colleagues Professor Sjoeboe and Dr Nice [names changed to protect everybody]. C and E - a triumph of genetics? - are practically clones, physically and mentally almost indistinguishable. Sjoeboe and Nice are not even close in race and culture, but again mentally [not this time physically] interchangeable.

You have characteristics which could align you with either group, and I am waiting for a clear tiebreaker.

But both pairs are definitely in the concludion first camp, and it would surprise me were you not there.

Not surprisingly, the two groups not infrequently frustrate one another.

@Philologos:
The evidence comes first in science, and if the conclusion is falsified by it or by new evidence later discovered then the conclusion is thrown out or modified in order to better explain the evidence. THAT is why evolution deserves a LOT more time in a biology classroom than intelligent design or scientific creationism.

Evolution is supported by and successfully predicts and explains all the evidence yet found and is falsified by none yet found. ID and Scientific Creationism (shown to be the same thing in the Dover trial, at least for how ID was being presented then) have NO evidence yet found supporting them and all the evidence yet found falsifies those parts of them that can be tested, although their basic premises cannot be tested which is ANOTHER reason even more important why they do NOT belong in a science classroom.

Let's see, all the evidence supports and none falsifies on one side, and that side IS falsifiable, NO evidence supports and all falsifies the parts than can be tested on the other, and the main ideas of the other can not be tested at our current level of technology and understanding....Hmmm....Do you STILL think these competing ideas deserve EQUAL time in a biology classroom? REALLY?

I would not call it dogmatic to assert that currently evolution IS the only scientific explanation that explains the history and diversity of living things on this planet. That is not dogma; it is an accurate description of reality that is supported by hard evidence, a LOT of evidence of many different types that all point to the same reality.

As I've said other posts, I have studied this "controversy" intensely more than 30 years. Back in the 1980s I was at a debate at a Christian Life Center in Vacaville, California. After the scientists and the creationists had their turns, the audience was allowed to ask questions of either or both sides. One good one was IF sufficient evidence were to be found that contradicts your view, would you consider changing your mind? The scientists all said "Yes, of course." The creationists all said "No, absolutely not." NO amount of evidence could possibly convince them that anything except a strict literalist interpretation of Genesis is accurate. I have an open mind to truth, which would put me more in the scientific crowd than the religious crowd. The late Ashley Montague once said "Science has proof without any certainty; Creationists have certainty without any proof."

Now maybe the creationists are correct. I could be wrong. However, so far, there is no physical evidence yet found that supports their interpretation, of Genesis, and much found that falsifies it. So, do I go by how some people say is the ONLY correct way to read an ancient book of mythology, OR do I go by what can be observed and tested by thousands of scientists worldwide the past one hundred fifty years, something that has been tested to the point where it is well within reason to declare it to be a fact of nature like gravity, electricity, the shape of the earth, or the heliocentric solar system?

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 05 May 2011, 1:13 am, edited 5 times in total.

Bicyclingguitarist and I would like to see you do it, it might be easier on a unicycle:

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE - if you talk to ME - will you listen to ME?

HAVE I SAID - me, moi, ich, ego, ya, 'ana, mimi, Philologos - that evolutionary theory and creationism [even in their nonmilitant incarnations] ought to have equal time in the biology classroom?

If ANYWHERE it sounds as if I am saying that, let me here categorically reject it. I HAVE said there should be less taught theory, more modelled analysis and more access to data and debate.

---------------

All of which is separate from reminding you that if Dr Bob says that scriptures and visions and dreams are not evidence that is not much different from Dr Luke saying cladistics and fossils are not evidence.

Defining the other's evidence as non-evidence - WHICH both sides of the feud [hardly debate] do - well, reminds me of Chomsky starting up TG: My theory accounts for X. ALL theories MUST account for X. Your theory does not Account for X. Ergo your theory is bad.

Of course, he got everybody but a few of us to buy into it. His theory, by the way, does not do what I say any theory ought to.

s.[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-2h0kw5ank[/youtube]

Less theory, more data and learning the tools of how to analyze it. Okay.

I don't say that dreams and visions are not evidence. They are not, however, scientific evidence by the definition of what science is and how it works. If science were to be redefined in such a way where intelligent design (at least in its present form) to be considered science, one would also have to allow Astrology as a science. That was what Michael Behe, the "star" of the intelligent design crowd, was forced to admit under oath at the Dover trial.

The creationists and intelligent design crowd claim their evidence is just as valid as the scientists, and that the scientists evidence is "interpreted" wrongly. What they don't get is that they DON'T have any scientific evidence (they have evidence, but it is spiritual evidence or religious, not scientific), and no, if the way the scientists interpret their evidence explains that evidence and is not falsified by it, then that's good solid science. Maybe a better explanation will come along someday, a theory of everything perhaps, but for now, evolution is the only game in town for explaining the development and diversity of life on this planet.

There are some outspoken atheists who insist that evolution "proves" there is no God, and they are being just as ridiculous as the creationists who claim the Bible "proves" evolution doesn't happen. IF one puts more weight on dreams, visions, and an ancient Holy Book than on hard physical evidence, then one could go with creationism. IF one insists only on what can be observed and measured (and I believe there is much more to the universe than that), one accepts the fact of evolution. It is possible to value BOTH types of evidence (yes dreams and Scriptures are evidence of a sort), and believe in a Creator or higher power or consciousness without denying evolution happens.

Science and Religion may overlap to some degree, but they deal with different types of experience. In Science and Creationism (1984, edited by Ashley Montague), one of the contributors makes the good point that the current controversy isn't really between science and religion. It is between the science of 2000 A.D. versus the science of 2000 B.C. If more people understood that, perhaps we wouldn't have so many idiots lobbying school boards and politicians to legislate enforced ignorance in public school science classrooms.

Actually, I think theory-down is the best way to teach. Let people know the lines of the debate, understand why those lines exist, and then use empirical analysis as a way to play around after that.

In any case, philologos, there is good evidence and bad evidence. Trying to say we can arbitrarily decide what evidence is valued as is not tenable in my eyes. (Not an arbitrary matter either) Some methods simply show themselves better, and people have to accept that.

While it is a great idea to not condition students to only think one way, which may lead to our stifling a potentially brilliant new insight, it also shouldn't be necessary for them to always have to reinvent the wheel. Where do you draw the line on passing along what 4000 years of science has gotten us? (I know, science in its modern form is only a few hundred years old, but man has been observing nature, recording observations, and attempting to explain them much longer than that).

Bicycling guitarist =

Who'ld a thunk it? Did not have ears to see how you sound, but you have to have extra semicircular canals in there. even on an empty sxtreet I would not dare. How long did it take to get there?

Be that as it may:

I think it is a not unimportant point that there is a circularity.

A divine revelation from [let us not be partisan] the Earth Mother to Erich Hoffmann and the citizens of Gla is not "scientific evidence" [quotes here not disparaging but demarcating a technical term] BECAUSE the "scientists' in general consensus assembled have decided that only data instrumentally measurable shall be asmitted.

In the same way my recorded voice admitting that I bombed the agora of Gla is not admissible because it was obtain ed without a warrant.

Mainstream science - including the reasonable segments, and I know many, I like to count myself in there - and mainstream religion - including the reasonable segments, of whom I hope I am one - more often than not do themselves and one another a disservice by rejecting the other's evidence out of hand.

If the hunt is for truth - ought we to filter the inputs?

In any case, I do not say reinvent the wheel. I do say regularly reconsider the wheel, - and anyone who does not do that is not much of a scientist.

What I do say - is do not TEACH the wheel - where the wheel is the body of current knowledge. That is on record. So is the "current knowledge" of a century ago [going to teach that?].

I say and say again, and Sherlock Holmes tends to agree, train the brain, don't stuff it. I love facts, revel in data, my brain is stuffed therewith. But I can't hold all of that stuff. But if I have the pattrern sense and the method I can pick up Moskovits' grammar of Hpa-Wthonq and fit it into the language family.

Whether I agree on para 1 is unclear until we negotiate whatr each means by theory. For most definitions in common academic use, though, I am much more into data and analysis than theory.
Your inclusion of "debate" is intriguing - in my world, theory and debate are mutually exclusive - I know your background is different.

Yes, of course there is good evidence and bad evidence. And my whole point is agin those who arbitarily and a priori decide what evidence is valued.

But again - we know you are more into team and consensus, I more focussed on the creative independent.

In point of fact there is room and there is need for both. And in reality for every gotta see for myself Thomas there is AND HAS TO BE a handful of I would never believe my ears if you had not heard it too Joes.

Can we POSSIBLY agree that it is wrong to say "Established theory says the sun goes around the earth, that is the consensus so your observations must be faulty, shut up!"?