Roger Ebert, Defender of Evolution

Roger Ebert, Defender of Evolution

There are 479 comments on the The Panda's Thumb story from Apr 4, 2013, titled Roger Ebert, Defender of Evolution. In it, The Panda's Thumb reports that:

As we reflect upon the amazing body of work left behind by this giant of the movie scene, readers of the Thumb should know that Roger Ebert was a passionate defender of science, and of evolution in particular.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Panda's Thumb.

Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#426 May 9, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
And this is the point which Shubee always comes from, the mathematical way of looking at things.
But science is not quite like that. Assumptions are often known to be approximate and imperfect, and open to dispute. Hardly axiomatic.
That's correct. Muddled thinking dominates what you call science.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#427 May 9, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
I really do not know much about this. But my interest is piqued enough...to want to know why Duesberg thinks he has a case. He was a reputable scientist after all, and he knows the rules (i.e. follow the evidence).
Be careful. Trust is dangerous. Investigating the controversy might persuade you that I'm right.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#428 May 9, 2013
Correction. I meant to write Truth is dangerous.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#429 May 10, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> No, not really. It was once believed that science refuted the particle theory of light. Then wave theory reigned for hundreds of years. That long reign came to an end. Modern science has returned to the particle theory of light.

No, science went from particle theory to wave theory to wavical (Quantum theory) which is where we still are.

Some research deals with just one aspect of light or the other.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#430 May 10, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>That's correct. Muddled thinking dominates what you call science.

Muddled thinking dominates your science.

We have demonstrated many times that your actual knowledge of science is very lacking.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#431 May 10, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Be careful. Trust is dangerous. Investigating the controversy might persuade you that I'm right.

What controversy? We know you are nuts.

Your inability to support your notions ends up being good evidence science being correct. If you bothered learning science instead of making it up you would be much further along.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#432 May 10, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>That's correct. Muddled thinking dominates what you call science.
Not at all. Its precise thinking applied to approximate and necessarily incomplete observation. That is where the "muddle" as you call it lies.

That is what you cannot handle about the real world. Multiple independent variables, unexpected interactions, chaotic outcomes. Even the fundamental uncertainty as identified by Heisenberg.

This is the REALITY that scientists have to deal with. Its not like the pristine world of mathematics. Theorems can be proved. Theories cannot.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#433 May 10, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> No, not really. It was once believed that science refuted the particle theory of light. Then wave theory reigned for hundreds of years. That long reign came to an end. Modern science has returned to the particle theory of light.
Thats a fudge, Shubee. The particle theory was rejected, because light displayed wavelike properties that the original particle theory could not accommodate.

Particle theory was not reinstated so much as a new synthesis of wave/particle duality was developed. We still have to reject particle theory as originally propounded. We also had to reject pure wave theory.

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis as Aristotle said. And he was a great empiricist!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#434 May 10, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Be careful. Trust is dangerous. Investigating the controversy might persuade you that I'm right.
As I said, its not a core interest of mine. Can't you make his argument and evidence briefly and concisely? And no angels and demons please - I do not regard Revelations as a reliable source of evidence in scientific debates!
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#435 May 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Can't you make his argument and evidence briefly and concisely?
I accept the argument by Kary Mullis stated very precisely in the first 3 minutes into this interview:

Since there is no rebuttal of that testimony by any accomplished scientist, I believe that Mullis and Duesberg win by default.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#436 May 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Thats a fudge, Shubee.
No. I'm being very precise. Does light consist of particles or doesn't it?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#437 May 10, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> I accept the argument by Kary Mullis stated very precisely in the first 3 minutes into this interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =IifgAvXU3tsXX
Since there is no rebuttal of that testimony by any accomplished scientist, I believe that Mullis and Duesberg win by default.

LOL.

No one has refute my hypothesis that the universe is made up entirely of invisible purple ping-pong balls either.

I believe that i win by default.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#438 May 10, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>No. I'm being very precise. Does light consist of particles or doesn't it?
I'm being very precise. Does light consist of waves or doesn't it?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#439 May 10, 2013
Dogen wrote:
Does light consist of waves or doesn't it?
Light is not a wave. And there is no luminiferous aether.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#440 May 10, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Light is not a wave. And there is no luminiferous aether.

So what is the difference between blue light and red light?

[what a moron]

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#441 May 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>No. I'm being very precise. Does light consist of particles or doesn't it?
Light consists of something that shares the attributes of both classical particles and classical waves. These were previously understood as two mutually exclusive phenomena.

Therefore, the answer to your question is no, light does not consist of particles in the classical sense but yes, light has some characteristics previously associated with particles and has other characteristics previously associated with waves.

You cannot fit this phenomenon neatly within either the "wave" or the "particle" box. Therefore the old dispute is resolved by a new synthesis of the two previous concepts...and saying light IS a "particle" OR IS a "wave" is an outmoded way of looking at the question if you are referring to the classical version of these terms.

Therefore you are simply asking the wrong question.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#442 May 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> I accept the argument by Kary Mullis stated very precisely in the first 3 minutes into this interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =IifgAvXU3tsXX
Since there is no rebuttal of that testimony by any accomplished scientist, I believe that Mullis and Duesberg win by default.
When did he make that argument? You realise that the origin of AIDS does not have to be a point of dogma, right? That new information and the accumulation of knowledge may have resolved what was once a contentious issue?

My point is that Mullis and Duesberg may have been right in calling out scientists for jumping on the first possible answer prematurely...but they may have been vindicated in the end. A lucky guess, after all.

You know, its not a crime in science to change your mind about something, especially as new data accumulates. Religious people might not understand that, particularly scriptural dogmatists who have a finite and non-expandable data set to work with.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#443 May 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
When did he make that argument? You realise that the origin of AIDS does not have to be a point of dogma, right? That new information and the accumulation of knowledge may have resolved what was once a contentious issue?
Yes, the HIV/AIDS hypothesis doesn't have to be dogma but it still is dogma. It hasn't been resolved.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#444 May 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
You know, its not a crime in science to change your mind about something, especially as new data accumulates. Religious people might not understand that, particularly scriptural dogmatists who have a finite and non-expandable data set to work with.
The church of HIV=AIDS=DEATH are obviously no different than the worst scriptural dogmatists of history.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#445 May 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> The church of HIV=AIDS=DEATH are obviously no different than the worst scriptural dogmatists of history.
It could be the case. On the other hand, the "HIV Church" has one thing going for it that scritpural dogmatists never have. New data, emerging every year, that can either confirm or falsify the HIV hypothesis.

You church dogmatists, on the other hand, are playing with the same deck as you were since the Council of Nicea and all you can do is argue on interpretation with no new information to clarify the debate. Hence 1000's of schisms and cults, and no resolution.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 min Science 66,718
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 min Subduction Zone 160,870
Why isn't intelligent design really science? 1 hr pshun2404 37
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 2 hr Subduction Zone 86
What does the theory of evolution state? 2 hr Subduction Zone 122
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr Endofdays 221,197
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 2 hr Subduction Zone 149
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Aura Mytha 28,500
More from around the web