Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - What we argue about when we argue about evolution

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

What we argue about when we argue about evolution
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 16, 17, 18, 19 Next

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

the_beaver

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 5:12 am Post subject:

bovinerebel wrote:

please people....a very simple point....grasp it...

We've all figured out that's what you're saying.

The problem is, it's easy to say that anything exists if one of the caveats is that it no proof is required and the other is that no proof can be found.

pastis

Joined: 20 Jun 2006

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 5:13 am Post subject:

bovineIQ wrote:

When it comes from people on this message boards with the most simplistic understand of science (know a little about the content but have thought f-all about the context) and is used to posture as if they have the intellectual high ground in matters which science is in fact pretty clueless...it lacks credibility.

Pure f-kking semantics. Do you think vomiting out the same terms over and over again gives you the intellectual high ground? You fail to recognize your own dogmatic hypocrisy. Look it up in wikipedia and get back to me.

bovinerebel

Joined: 27 Feb 2008

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 5:27 am Post subject:

the_beaver wrote:

bovinerebel wrote:

please people....a very simple point....grasp it...

Well let's not go too far. Both sides need to be reasonable . If the mood strikes I shouldn't insist upon the existance of some random entity just because there is no way you can disprove it and I can get away from it....that's just noise. I'm specifically talking about people who may feel they have had some spiritual encounter , insight or enlightenment. Until you can prove beyond doubt that their experience was trivial and the result of insignificant phenomena , do they not deserve the right to believe in their own subjective experience without being belittled ? Especially considered at this point we have no idea regarding the nature of things such as consciousness , qualia , empathy etc .

bovinerebel

Joined: 27 Feb 2008

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 5:28 am Post subject:

pastis wrote:

bovineIQ wrote:

Spat the dummy again ?

I wish I didn't have to repeat the same thing over and over , but frankly SOME people here seem a little....how can you say.....dim .

pastis

Joined: 20 Jun 2006

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 5:33 am Post subject:

^ You have zero credibility (as already mentioned several times). You didn't even cite wikipedia, your one and only source. Just accept that you are inferior. It's obvious.

bovinerebel

Joined: 27 Feb 2008

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 5:38 am Post subject:

pastis wrote:

^ You have zero credibility (as already mentioned several times). You didn't even cite wikipedia, your one and only source.

Just accept that you are inferior. It's obvious.

Actually I'm more a youtube , discovery , book reading type guy , but certainly when i want to know more about something i'll give wikipedia a read.... what is it exactly you have against wikipedia ?

What an eccentric person.

Last edited by bovinerebel on Thu May 08, 2008 5:40 am; edited 1 time in total

tomato

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 5:40 am Post subject:

bovinerebel wrote:

....to ignore the possibility that it could turn out that conciousness is not physical is thus pure DOGMA.

I know.
That's why I said "Maybe, maybe not."

Quote:

With that as a given , can we finally agree that because you have 'science' on your side, it does not make you qualified to dismiss anything metaphysical in nature.

I know.
That's why I said "Maybe, maybe not."

Did I "dismiss anything metaphysical in nature"?
If I did, I humbly apologize.

Quote:

Until the day you can effectively prove that the metaphysical does not exist and can explain everything in terms of reductionistic physics , you're overstepping your territory and showing your faith based belief down peoples throats.

I'm overstepping my territory and shoving my faith-based belief down people's throats by saying "maybe, maybe not"?

Quote:

If you want to have a strong dogmatic opinion on the matter , then prerogative is as much on you to disporove the metaphysical than it is for religious people to prove it......you're both arguing from ignorance and based on faith. You're no worse than them , but you;re certainly no better. Both sides could do with a little humility.

Where do I express a "strong dogmatic opinion on the matter"?
Whoever said it takes two to make an argument never met a guy like you.

I don't see you quoting any individual passages from my post.
Did you even read it?

Quote:

(I'm in the middle so I get to be arrogant. )

Oh, is THAT your excuse!

Last edited by tomato on Thu May 08, 2008 5:45 am; edited 2 times in total

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 5:44 am Post subject:

bovinerebel wrote:

Quote:

What claim?

Sigh . Stop playing dumb. If you're not making the claim that science(physics) somehow trumps other ways of knowing and is the only valid way to approach the metaphysical , then what the hell are we arguing about ?

Ummmm. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. Did you read my analogy of the ruler? Science measures what science can measure and that's it.

Quote:

Semantics. If you belittle peoples beliefs you hamper their freedom to have them.

If people choose to debate their beliefs (as you are now), ummm, who cares?

Quote:

I'm not defending religion. I'm criticising the absurdity of people who dismiss the metaphyiscal based on physics.

A weird position, as you keep using vague references to physics to defend your position.

Quote:

No. I need to school you again in basic science and method. Generally scientists observe. Then they form a hypothesis (not a theory). Then they determine what evidence is needed to support the hypothesis and what evidence might falsify it. Then they try to find that evidence. As evidence over time accumulates for the hypothesis, it then becomes a theory.

Se-fekking-mantics. You know fully what I mean. You formulate your conclusions to fit your data , not the other way around.

Again, YOU were the one who demanded I read more carefully. That also implies all concerned should strive for accuracy in their writing. And no. Science doesn't fit the data to the conclusions. Science tests hypotheses. A hypothesis stands or falls based on the experiment. That is simply NOT the same as saying science ignores data that does not fit.

Quote:

And in your adult life you've never learned to spell sociobiologist? You sure now?

Yeah...I spell biology "bilogy" and it wasn't a typing error ...that's a reasonable conclusion you've come to .

I've been a Canadian most of my adult life and I can reasonably pick out when I make a typo in "Canada", "Canadian", etc. Anyway, wouldn't you find it weird if someone claimed to be a doctor and couldn't spell doctor correctly?

Quote:

Still wondering who is doing that.

If it's not you , then what exactly are you arguing about ?

Boy. You really miss simple stuff. You keep claiming people in science believe it is the only method to achieve knowledge, to know. I keep asking you "well, who exactly?" I've stated, rather clearly MANY times, I don't think science is the best tool to determining things like how to lead a moral or ethical life, how to love your family, etc.

And you've agreed that simply wanting evidence that Santa exists is not the same as rejecting a priori the possibility of Santa. No? For any observed phenomenon there are many possible explanations. We have to have a method for deciding which are the most likely causes.

Quote:

On a related matter...that sounds like you believe that all that exists is physical , yet are under the illusion that allows for free will. I don't see how you could believe in hard line reductionism and free will at the same time. Sorry...that's absurd. Can't have your cake and eat it.

Wow a new fallacy. False dichotomy. Back to my ruler analogy. Just because you believe a ruler is useful to measure many things, and can bring about a better outcome than not using a ruler, it doesn't mean anything beyond that.

It's probably better to use a ruler when installing a door than just trusting your feelings that the door frame and the door will fit. Oh my god, does that mean you suddenly don't believe feelings and intuition are useful tools when trying to figure out in 30 minutes whether or not to hire an applicant for your construction business? Does that make free will impossible?

bovinerebel

Joined: 27 Feb 2008

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 5:45 am Post subject:

[quote="tomato"]

tomato wrote:

Rteacher wrote:

Consciousness is the practical manifestation of the soul. It's not comprised of physical elements.

Maybe, maybe not.
The sun was described in supernatural terms until it was discovered to be a giant mass of hydrogen and helium.
Thunder was described in supernatural terms until it was discovered to result from hot air meeting cold air.

This doesn't prove that there is a natural explanation for consciousness.
After all, all we have to go on is inductive reasoning, and you can't get a conclusive argument from inductive reasoning.

However, this shows that we are often too quick to jump to a supernatural explanation when a natural explanation is not already available.

bovinerebel wrote:

....to ignore the possibility that it could turn out that conciousness is not physical is thus pure DOGMA.

I know.
That's why I said "Maybe, maybe not."

Quote:

With that as a given , can we finally agree that because you have 'science' on your side, it does not make you qualified to dismiss anything metaphysical in nature.

I know.
That's why I said "Maybe, maybe not."
Did I "dismiss anything metaphysical in nature"?
If I did, I humbly apologize.

Quote:

I'm overstepping my terrority and shoving my faith-based belief down people's throats by saying "maybe, maybe not"?

Quote:

(I'm in the middle so I get to be arrogant. )

Oh, is THAT your excuse!

Relax. I wasn't talking about "you" . I meant 'you" as anyone who relates to the description of the opinions I've described.

Rteacher

Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 5:52 am Post subject:

In summation, what we're really talking about when we argue about evolution is "no evil out" - or possibly "out no evil", "oo evil nut"... - "UN too evil", "too unevil", "u evil toon", "to live on u", etc... OK, I got my insight: "to live on u" indicates that evolution is a parasitic theory - and "u" folks into pushing it are "onto evil"...

bovinerebel

Joined: 27 Feb 2008

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 6:01 am Post subject:

Quote:

Ummmm. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. Did you read my analogy of the ruler? Science measures what science can measure and that's it.

Good for you .So what are you arguing about with me ?

Quote:

If people choose to debate their beliefs (as you are now), ummm, who cares?

It's easy to defend your beliefs using science....society is saturated with science. It's harder for people who've had some metaphysical experience to defend or explain it without serious insight into the universe. Someone ought to help keep the balance , no ?

Quote:

A weird position, as you keep using vague references to physics to defend your position.

I don't have a position. I've only proposed alternatives possibilities to demonstrate how there are many unanswered questions. To have a strong position either way would be premature. But until then if I have some spiritual experience I see enough gaps in physics to allow myself to go with it with confidence.

Quote:

I never said science fits data to conclusions ....well...often it does , but in principle it knows better. But to state that the mind must be physical because you have concluded everything that exists is physical is bad science. It requires testing before you arrive at a conclusion. Simple point and I know you understand I'm correct in this respect.

Quote:

I'm sorry...I don't ever re-read or check what I've posted. That would seem a little too much work...I do this for fun and you may have noticed I hold pay much attention to the little details.

Quote:

Then why do you keep putting yourself in opposition to me ?

Quote:

And you've agreed that simply wanting evidence that Santa exists is not the same as rejecting a priori the possibility of Santa. No? For any observed phenomenon there are many possible explanations. We have to have a method for deciding which are the most likely causes.

Sure. I agree. But appreciate the difference between wanting evidence before YOU believe...and insisting others require it before they believe , especially when dealing with something like the metaphysical within which it may not be possible to "prove" anything.

Quote:

Actually to me there is no difference between determinism and materialism (well ....to clarify if you are a hard materialist that doesn;t give much scope for the belief in free will). I've yet to see any convincing argument to counter that. But that's an entire other debate.

Last edited by bovinerebel on Thu May 08, 2008 6:16 am; edited 1 time in total

pastis

Joined: 20 Jun 2006

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 6:03 am Post subject:

Well, I really gotta give the bovineretard credit for two thing: first, being such a clueless, arrogant moron that it became funny, and second, for being the foil for mindmetoo's eloquent, informative and patient responses, even in the face of such complete doltishness. Nice show.

bovinerebel

Joined: 27 Feb 2008

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 6:17 am Post subject:

pastis wrote:

Well, I really gotta give the bovineretard credit for two thing: first, being such a clueless, arrogant moron that it became funny, and second, for being the foil for mindmetoo's eloquent, informative and patient responses, even in the face of such complete doltishness. Nice show.

Thank you. Sadly I can't reciprocate by giving you any credit at all.

pastis

Joined: 20 Jun 2006

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 6:39 am Post subject:

Justin Hale wrote:

Pastis doesn't need nor want your appreciation, South African fellow. Nobody, on this planet, needs the appreciation of a South African. Have you any idea how vile your accent is? Have you any idea what sub-human feces you are considered?

South Africa - White AND black - should be totally sterilized with thermonuclear annihilation. It simply doesn't matter what you say. You are South African. That is the ultimate punishment.

If I was South African, I would kill myself. South Africa is interesting solely because of its animals. Yes, Bovinerebel....South Africa's animals are more interesting than its people.

Seems I've been outdone! Laughing

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 11:24 am Post subject:

bovinerebel wrote:

Quote:

Ummmm. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. Did you read my analogy of the ruler? Science measures what science can measure and that's it.

Good for you .So what are you arguing about with me ?

I should just have a macro that spits this out. But I'll repeat it again from my previous post:

Boy. You really miss simple stuff. You keep claiming people in science believe it is the only method to achieve knowledge, to know. I keep asking you "well, who exactly?" I've stated, rather clearly MANY times, I don't think science is the best tool to determining things like how to lead a moral or ethical life, how to love your family, etc.

Quote:

If people have cherished beliefs they can't defend on logical or scientific grounds and they cry like school girls if they advocate their ideas and their ideas get challenged, then they simply should either get thicker skins or not try to advocate their beliefs. I advocate a wide range of beliefs on Dave's and I'm not exactly hoisted by the users of Dave's above everyone's head and paraded down Daehan-ro.

Who said life was fair? Many people want to base laws and public policy on matters of faith. If they're advocating a law or policy or a social norm based on metaphysical principles, then, like any idea, it can and should be debated and challenged.

Quote:

But to state that the mind must be physical because you have concluded everything that exists is physical is bad science.

I'll give you $5 if you show me where I said that. The mind is either a product of the biochemical substrate OR the biochemical substrate is a receiver for the mind (there is some part of the mind that is not accounted for by the physical properties of the mind). Now what I've said, I'm sure many times, is I've seen no evidence that requires the additions required by the latter. Maybe one day. You'll recall from your extensive research that the dualist position was the default assumption but has been largely abandoned with advances in neuroscience which has found evidence consistent with the brain being the originator of consciousness. Following Occam's Razor, until I see evidence that can't be explained by the simplest model, I'll go with the simplest model. And here, let me give you but one example that would convince me that we need to switch to a dualist model. This would convince me I'm wrong (I hope you can articulate what would convince you the dualist model is the more unlikely):

If we regularly had people dying on the table and they were regularly able to float above their body, see a simple code word atop a cabinet that they couldn't see any other way, and then they're revived, and they report the code word, well, I would be forced to conclude that the mind is more than just the brain.

Quote:

I'm sorry...I don't ever re-read or check what I've posted. That would seem a little too much work...I do this for fun and you may have noticed I hold pay much attention to the little details.

I still think a doctor should be able to crank off doctor without a typo. But hey, a small point.

Quote:

I think I've already stated whatever keeps you hard is fine with me. But if you're trying to get a law passed on it, then I think it's subject to debate.

Quote:

Actually to me there is no difference between determinism and materialism

From wiki

Determinism (also called antiserendipity) is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behaviour, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.

The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter, and is considered a form of physicalism.

They seem different to me. (And let me state "proven to exist" is not the same as rejecting things that can't be proven. That would mean a lot of scientists need to reject math.)

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 16, 17, 18, 19 Next
Page 17 of 19

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe