May 8, 2007
I also find his narrow focus on climate change mitigation more than a little peculiar. Perhaps it's his way of avoiding larger environmental issues with respect to climate change. He seems to be similar to some of our religious apologists in that he repeats the same argument over and over, claims to know better than the scientists who are actually working in the field, and so dominates the thread with his little special interest that it's hard to discuss anything else. If he has nothing new to add, simple courtesy would suggest silence. (54 min ago | post #14006)
Although I agree that creationism is pseudoscience, I take issue with your obsession wit experimentation. Here's another take from talkorigins.org: The Scientific Method: More than Mere Experimentation What exactly is the scientific method? This is a complex and contentious question, and the field of inquiry known as the "philosophy of science" is committed to illuminating the nature of the scientific method. Probably the most influential philosopher of science of the 20th century was Sir Karl Popper. Other notables are Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, Paul Feyerabend, Paul Kitcher, A. F. Chalmers, Wesley Salmon and Bas C. van Fraassen. This is not the place to delve into an explication of the various philosophies represented by these scholars. For more information I refer you to their works and to the discussion presented by John Wilkins in his Evolution and Philosophy FAQ. Personally, I take a Bayesian view of the scientific method in principle (Jaynes 2003; Salmon 1990), and a Likelihoodist stance on evidence in practice (Burnham and Anderson 2002; Edwards 1972; Royall 1997), and these views will come through in how I present the evidence for common descent. Now, to answer the question "What is the scientific method?" - very simply (and somewhat naively), the scientific method is a program for research which comprises four main steps. In practice these steps follow more of a logical order than a chronological one: 1. Make observations. 2. Form a testable, unifying hypothesis to explain these observations. 3. Deduce predictions from the hypothesis. 4. Search for confirmations of the predictions; if the predictions are contradicted by empirical observation, go back to step (2). Because scientists are constantly making new observations and testing via those observations, the four "steps" are actually practiced concurrently. New observations, even if they were not predicted, should be explicable retrospectively by the hypothesis. New information, especially details of some process previously not understood, can impose new limits on the original hypothesis. Therefore, new information, in combination with an old hypothesis, frequently leads to novel predictions that can be tested further. Examination of the scientific method reveals that science involves much more than naive empiricism. Research that only involves simple observation, repetition, and measurement is not sufficient to count as science. These three techniques are merely part of the process of making observations (#1 in the steps outlined above). Astrologers, wiccans, alchemists, and shamans all observe, repeat, and measure but they do not practice science. Clearly, what distinguishes science is the way in which observations are interpreted, tested, and used. (2 hrs ago | post #14004)
People say stuff like that when they are provoked into anger. You can be pretty nasty without being obscene, but nasty is nasty. And you have been, and when you are, you should expect no less than the worst your targets can dish out. (16 hrs ago | post #266055)
It's a doity job, but... It's also more effective if one who agrees with you takes you to task. Your attacks on ChristineM have been vile and I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees it. (17 hrs ago | post #266052)
Delusional. Not even very good fiction. (17 hrs ago | post #13973)
Good fiction. Even better than the Bible. (18 hrs ago | post #13972)
I think that Henry Addams and Charles Brown are among Patrick's pseudonyms. A Lme attempt to make it look as though his own word come from someone else. He's SUCH a liar. (18 hrs ago | post #13970)
One problem: the only study that claims to show these rates is flawed beyond belief--unless, of course, the study that you get your figures from is one I haven't found. No way of knowing, though, as you have never posted your source for this assertion the way an HONEST writer would. (18 hrs ago | post #13969)
It's been a long time since any religious apologist has written a post that did not rely on one of the classic fallacies. Here's a clue: intelligent people study logic to AVOID the use of fallacies, not to use them more prolifically. (Monday | post #13871)
I remember that. The controversy was actually about whether the word was describing a circle (two dimensional) or a globe (three dimensional). The passage in question seemed to be describing the former. No one claimed that a circle wasn't round. You are making that up. (Saturday May 21 | post #305)
Hard to believe even you would post something so idiotic. (Thursday May 19 | post #288)
A half-century ago, Madelyn Murray O'Hair was the most hated woman in America. The country was Hugely religious in 1966 with even the younger generations being nondenominational at rates lower than 7%. It was in 1966 that Time published the article "Is God Dead?, but the backlash in the U.S. was as powerful as it was virulent. Atheism was NOT popular a half century ago, but is much more so now, with 'nones' comprising nearly a quarter of the population and with nearly 10% conceding disbelief in God. You are simply wrong about this. (Thursday May 19 | post #13647)
You are the clueless one when it comes to statistics. A more knowledgeable person would evaluate a study before posting its results publicly, paying close attention to the metadata that establishes its validity. Having done that, he would then post a link to both the study and, if it is separate, the metadata. You don't do that. You post the results and make any who would question the data track it down based only on those results. I did that, found the flaw in the study, posted a link to the study and pointed out its flaws, and you ignored that and continued to post the flawed a anyway. Are statistics too hard for you or do you have more problems with simple honesty? (Thursday May 19 | post #13642)
Q & A with NightSerf
It's just a box of rain...
Mulligan's, the Orangery, and the Laurel Theater
I Belong To:
The Meltones and TPD
When I'm Not on Topix:
I'm making music.
Read My Forum Posts Because:
It's a glance into the abyss.
I'm Listening To:
Read This Book:
On Writing Well by William Zinsser
Books, music, drama, food, wine, beer, nature, ideas.
On My Mind:
I Believe In:
kindness as humanity's most noble attribute.
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC