"Science Guy’ Bill Nye vs. Creationist Ken Ham: Who Will Win the Big Debate?

GetHyped

jimmyx
to "debate" against a religious belief is not possible. the belief side never has to prove anything, while the opposite side has to prove that the belief is wrong.

It would seem you don't have even the faintest idea what the debate was about. If a religious person wishes to make claims about the universe (such as Ken Ham stating that evolution is wrong) then the burden is on the person making such claims to prove them.

to your last sentence, that's the whole point. how did ken ham prove that evolution is wrong?...it came down to (as it always does) that god is an infinite all-knowing god, and man does not know how god works....kinda hard to debate that

reply to post by Another_Nut


Basic M-theory as it's based on there being multiple universes. Which the Planck study achieves.

Here's a link to the predictions that have been shown to be correct at CERN so far - www.phy.pku.edu.cn...

I strongly recommend you read up on basic probability before trying to understand that paper though as your previous dice example proves you haven't got the basics right yet (they only take a few minutes to work out - whereas this data/subject matter takes years of hard graft)

reply to post by jimmyx


Well if I remember correctly the debate was about how viable is teaching of creation in today’s world. Where Ken Ham had the Bible, Bill Nye had scientific evidence. The dwelled on Genesis and didn't consider alternatives to evolutionary theory that are less overtly biblical — such as old-Earth creationism or intelligent design.

Ham said no evidence could possibly sway him from his literal interpretation of Genesis — including a six-day creation that occurred 6,000 years ago, and a global flood that killed off all but eight members of the human race 4,400 years ago.

In contrast, Nye said one solid piece of evidence would be enough to change his view of cosmic origins. "If you could show that somehow the microwave background radiation is not the result of the Big Bang, bring it on!" he said. "Write a paper! Tear it up!"

If Hams goal was to prove that creation mythos of the bible should be taught alongside the sciences and be given equal or even some scientific weight he failed miserably.

bastion
Basic M-theory as it's based on there being multiple universes. Which the Planck study achieves.

This is correct, for M-Theory to function as a theory it requires that there be infinite, or near infinite for all pratical purposes, universes. It makes ours less 'special' as all probabale outcomes for the laws of physcis are covered under this model.

bastion
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

Basic M-theory as it's based on there being multiple universes. Which the Planck study achieves.

Here's a link to the predictions that have been shown to be correct at CERN so far - www.phy.pku.edu.cn...

I strongly recommend you read up on basic probability before trying to understand that paper though as your previous dice example proves you haven't got the basics right yet (they only take a few minutes to work out - whereas this data/subject matter takes years of hard graft)

edit on 24-2-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)

Wrong again

Here is phy.org on a real predictions and tests to verify

Good try though

That paper you posted is from 2012

Keep up to date


m.phys.org...

This is from January of this year

reply to post by Another_Nut


One last thing and then im out considering this thread is not about m or string or even the number of times life has been destroyed on earth

My only point here is that creationist should not be lumped together with biblical young earth nuts like ham

Having said that I will post in anyones thread who wishes to debate those things in this thread that are far off topic of nye and ham

Just u2u me the thread name if you do

Meet you there

reply to post by Another_Nut


How is a paper demonstrating the predictions and results of string theory/m-theory experiments at CERN not a paper on the predictions and results of string theory/m-theory experiments at CERN? This is why learning basic probability and statistical tests/analysis is required before trying to understand these papers. Sorry but it's obvious you don't understand the basics so it's no use trying to pretend you understand the more complex stuff that most people with degrees/masters in the subject areas still find incredibly hard to get their heads around.

The link you posted is a separate test that could be based on bodies in our solar system, which if correct, doesn't require high energy collisions/isn't limited by the power of particle accelerators so is a far more practical approach. It's just a different approach - however if it works it'll be far, far cheaper way of exploring the subject and may completely remove the current limitations on how far we can delve into the subatomic world.

Another_Nut
My only point here is that creationist should not be lumped together with biblical young earth nuts like ham

Yep, we did not place them on the same place on the scale. One is on 'wrong', while other is on 'very wrong'.

Both creationist theories fail at the same part, where science is not used as intended to explain things, but rather as tool to propagate belief. YEC is extreme example of that and Ham is clear - there can't be enough evidence in whole world to convince him otherwise. He selectively choose to believe in everything as written in bible.

How is that different from other forms of creationist belief and in your case, fine tuned galaxy believe? Not much if you ask me. It is based on pick-and-chose pieces you like about science to prove 'belief'.

Both of them are fail interpretation, and both are based on 'belief' rather then evidence, thus the same. Sorry...

SuperFrog

Another_Nut
My only point here is that creationist should not be lumped together with biblical young earth nuts like ham

Yep, we did not place them on the same place on the scale. One is on 'wrong', while other is on 'very wrong'.

Both creationist theories fail at the same part, where science is not used as intended to explain things, but rather as tool to propagate belief. YEC is extreme example of that and Ham is clear - there can't be enough evidence in whole world to convince him otherwise. He selectively choose to believe in everything as written in bible.

How is that different from other forms of creationist belief and in your case, fine tuned galaxy believe? Not much if you ask me. It is based on pick-and-chose pieces you like about science to prove 'belief'.

Both of them are fail interpretation, and both are based on 'belief' rather then evidence, thus the same. Sorry...

edit on 25-2-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-2-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)

Science is as dogmatic as religion. Yes, even scientists will tell you this.

If anything goes against dogma in science, then scientists must avoid it at all costs. Example, Todd Disotell, famous biologist and current sweetheart of the science circus circuit currently appearing on your local television channel. Todd Disotell was sent samples of DNA from Melba Ketchum, his job was merely to run and analyze the DNA sequences. When Disotell only ran the mtDNA and concluded the samples belonged only to a female human, but then discovered anomalies, instead of reporting back that anomalies were found, he threw the samples away.

Now how interesting it is, that a preeminent scientist would throw away a sample knowing the Chain of Custody required in a forensics case would dictate him not throwing it away? Then this same Disotell criticizes Melba Ketchum when he finds out it was a Sasquatch hypothesis.

Melba Ketchum didn't use her own lab, but 13 genetics testing lab in which ALL 13 labs reported the anomalies in the sequencing. However, not one single lab has reported any fraud on her part. But as soon as she mentioned Sasquatch, the scientific community jumped on the dogma bandwagon and suddenly became dismissing her immediately, without addressing the findings of ALL 13 labs and then reported to the media that she had contaminated the evidence. Not one single lab reported contamination.

The dogma of science prevents scientists from examining anything outside of the accepted science.

From Tufts University
Dogma In Science

While many people are blindly following science, what they really are holding to are dogmatic beliefs in science. It has nothing to do with facts.

Science is an inherently conservative institution when it comes to adopting new hypotheses or new theories. The Columbia sociologist of science Robert Merton called it “organized skepticism”. Hypotheses and theories are assumed false unless
proven true. Science also tolerates a great deal of diversity. Even as the orthodoxy persists, theories critical of that orthodoxy find venues for publication, albeit not frequently in the prestigious journals.

I hear it over and over again..."facts, facts, facts", but what happens when those facts are nothing more than speculation on the part of the scientist and then that scientist is quoted over and over again?

Henry Bauer is professor emeritus of chemistry and science studies and dean emeritus of arts and sciences at Virginia Tech. His book focuses on what he terms “knowledge monopolies”. According to the author, established scientific groups, journal editors, and individual scientists, in collaboration with the science media, set a limit of tolerance for what they will accept as
credible knowledge or even credible hypotheses in publication. Bauer describes in great detail efforts to protect the orthodoxy from alternative theories, explanations and hypotheses of empirical evidence.

Bill Nye is repeating dogmatic claims. It has nothing to do with facts or evidence. The scientific community is exposing dogmatism, but for the average skeptic on ATS who blindly follow the parrotted media, don't even question the dogma in the scientist. And then they worry about TPTB. Science IS TPTB.

If this author is not enough then let's check out what MIT says
Dogmatism in Scienc

Scientific knowledge is never absolute. Rather, it represents the consensus of a critical and vigilant community of scholars. It is this idea of consensus which is often confused with Absolute Truth, and this is particularly apparent when we enter the realm of human action, and thus of moral judgment.

There is NO absolute in evolutionary science or the Big Bang Theory. It is only a consensus.

Science can adapt to change precisely because its methods take nothing for granted; even these methods themselves are open to scrutiny and re-evaluation! There are no timeless, ahistorical truths.

When a scientist no longer opens himself up for scrutiny, then he has taken the absolutist approach. And many ATSers who believe science trumps and there is no need for further scrutiny, must then make an absolutionist statement, one which is not founded in science. As science is therefore not expressive of absolutes, then the Three Laws of Physics, while they may seem absolute, when a creationist questions the first law, evolutionists instead respond with "would you shut up already!".

Looking at and investigating evidence is always the best method, but science should never be vaunted to the absolute answer in determining exactly what is a fact. Fact, I have blue eyes. Fact, neither of my parents had blue eyes. Truth, my eyes are blue because my genome expresses certain genes that trigger blue eyes. Did I make an absolute true statement? Yes, my eyes are blue. But at the same time, the truth is that scientists still aren't aware of exactly why my genes have triggered for the response of my blue eyes. But that's a simplistic approach.

The general consensus would be that I have blue eyes, therefore it is a dogmatic statement, because we all believe I have blue eyes. But what is less dogmatic would be me saying "My genes are triggered to express in my genotype the phenotype of blue". That then can be explored and open to scrutiny because now we have to investigate just why my eyes are blue.

When people parrot responses from the scientific community, confusing fact with dogma, then they are subject to the dogmatic beliefs of the scientist who refuses scrutiny. And that's not very scientific.

reply to post by WarminIndy


So dogmatic that science will self correct.

Stem cells: Scientist asks for research to be withdrawn

It was reported in January that dipping cells in acid could cheaply and quickly convert them into stem cells.

But questions were raised about the images used in the scientific report and other research groups have failed to reproduce the results.

Author Prof Teruhiko Wakayama said: "It is no longer clear what is right."

Grimpachi
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

So dogmatic that science self will correct.

Stem cells: Scientist asks for research to be withdrawn

It was reported in January that dipping cells in acid could cheaply and quickly convert them into stem cells.

But questions were raised about the images used in the scientific report and other research groups have failed to reproduce the results.

Author Prof Teruhiko Wakayama said: "It is no longer clear what is right."

Was any link in my post to a religious site?

Again, from MIT

The insistence that we can know Absolutes, moral or otherwise, is a denial of the dynamic character of the world around us, and it arises from the same sort of dogmatic appeal to absolute knowledge that in the present day condemns Salman Rushdie to a life of terror, and in earlier times twice put Galileo before the Inquisition. On this latter point we would do well to remember the response of a scholastic thinker when Galileo asked him to look through his telescope and observe the moons of Jupiter: the man replied that he needn't look through the device, as he would certainly not see anything that Aristotle had not written about more than a millennia before.

This is not a scientific outlook, and those who claim insight into moral Absolutes often find themselves in a similar position as the scholastic here described. They cannot account for new information, new insights, new ideas, precisely because they are trapped into asserting what seemed beforehand to be indubitable truth. New ideas, new interpretations are stifled because they are taken to be wrong a priori.

As your pictures are nothing more than sweeping generalizations, hence we read only one book, and that creationists don't need facts, your assertion is as false as it is misleading and simply parrotted.

Here's an accusation of dogma from other scientists regarding chiropracty.

Subluxation and Dogma

We believe that an evidence-orientation among chiropractors requires that we distinguish between subluxation dogma vs. subluxation as the potential focus of clinical research. We lament efforts to generate unity within the profession through consensus statements concerning subluxation dogma, and believe that cultural authority will continue to elude us so long as we assert dogma as though it were validated clinical theory.

I'm sorry, what? Who is making the accusation of dogma? Who is the accused? What is the accusation? Science, science, dogma.

I would kindly point out to you that in making my arguments, have come from science websites, not religious ones.

And here you go, some more about science dogma
European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy

Philosophers of science have discussed the dichotomy between criticism and dogmatism in scientific practice since the 1960s. The core of their discussion regards the necessity to preserve the stability of science against “permanent (scientific)
revolution” whilst at the same time, acknowledging the essential function played by doubt and criticism in scientific progress.

Popper Kuhn Debate

I feel bad that this takes a psychological toll on people to have to come to terms that their science heroes are displaying dogmatic beliefs to the point of completely disregarding and rejecting any empirical evidence that does not follow what they have been taught. Sasquatch, empirical evidence now supports its existence, validated not only by one scientist, but 13 labs. While people like you demand empirical evidence, empirical evidence has been given, then heavily criticized by those very people who proved in their laboratories that the evidence is indeed empirical.

The Popper Kuhn debate can be summed up this way

Kuhn's stress on paradigms and revolutions seemed to make scientific reasoning more a phenomena of group psychology and even metaphysical faith than the objective, independently testable standards that Popper believed science should abide by. While Popper was willing to concede that what Kuhn described as "normal science" did go on, to conduct research in this way was to "fail" at its rational standards.

So all of this "rational" and "logical" requirements that people are always imposing into the discussion as to why belief in God is neither rational or logical, it is metaphysical in itself.

Imre Lakatos from the same article

Rather than describe the research "programme" as true or false, one should see them as either progressing or degenerating. Commitment to a theory can offer important epistemic payback, provided that the reworking of the system continues to offer progress (a "positive heuristic") via new information, continued testability, more precision, and so on. However, once a programme fails to do so and only makes ad hoc changes to protect itself, it begins to degenerate. A degenerating programme sounds its death knells once its encounters a progressive one with a rival hard core of theory.

So a scientific theory is only based on whether or not it progresses or encounters a rival theory that is equally progressive.

Paul Feyerabend

Feyerabend, on the other hand, argued in works like Against Method that scientists never actually follow the methodological rules set down as normative for science, and indeed in many revolutions to do so would have impeded actual progress. To insist that new theories are consistent with older theories gives an "aesthetic" privilege to the past. The criteria of falsification is especially misguided since no theory with any real explanatory power and interest can account for all the facts.

Given that some scientists never actually follow the rules, can lead to misguided interpretations. Yes, dogmatism in science exists. That dogmtism is based not in evidence or even scientific research, but touted as absolutes based on the scientist's own priori.

So what's the discussion about Creation Science not being as equally as viable as Evolution, given that they both have priori? But yet at the same time, Creation Scientists provide empirical evidence that is rejected by Evolutionary scientists, based on their own priori.

Notice, not one of these links were to religious sites and none of them regarded anything about religion or Creation in them, they were simply addressing the secular science and the accusation that secular science is anything but secular.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Was any link in my post to a religious site?

Are you aware what this thread is about?

As your pictures are nothing more than sweeping generalizations, hence we read only one book, and that creationists don't need facts, your assertion is as false as it is misleading and simply parrotted.

Yet you are using sweeping generalizations about science by cherry picking.

I'm sorry, what? Who is making the accusation of dogma? Who is the accused? What is the accusation? Science, science, dogma.

Do you consider chiropractors to be scientists? I don't think you actually read the article

Chiropractors' reluctance to construe subluxation as hypothesis may derive in part from the limited consideration given to epistemology. Epistemology is that branch of philosophy, which deals with the nature of knowledge. Within the context of a clinical discipline such as chiropractic, epistemology addresses the means by which we may gain understanding about the nature of patients' problems, determine optimal methods of resolving or alleviating these problems, and appreciate the mechanisms by which successful interventions are accomplished. Chiropractors have traditionally offered a wide range of epistemological and reasoning strategies [7,71-80], including divine or spiritual inspiration, uncritical empiricism, uncritical rationalism (also referred to as "deductive science"

For whatever the reasons, many in the chiropractic profession in the North American continent and in Australia and New Zealand remain committed to a dogmatic orientation to subluxation, its supposed health consequences and the putative benefits to be derived from subluxation-correction [17-19]. Although the percentage of chiropractors who adhere to dogmatism is not known, a 1994 sample of Canadian chiropractors was intriguing [86]. While 86% believed that chiropractors' methods should be validated, 74% disagreed that controlled trials are the best way to

And here you go, some more about science dogma

Again did you read the article?

Finally, dogmatism does not refer to a system
of beliefs, but to a system of norms; not to the specific content of knowledge but
to the way that scientific knowledge is authenticated, organised, and transmitted
by scientific communities

I feel bad that this takes a psychological toll on people to have to come to terms that their science heroes are displaying dogmatic beliefs to the point of completely disregarding and rejecting any empirical evidence that does not follow what they have been taught.

And I feel bad that you didn't comprehend what the articles were saying.

Sasquatch, empirical evidence now supports its existence

OK sure, whatever.

Look you seem to be all over the place and quote mined from some sources after doing a google search where you never took the time to digest the information within. You tried to construct a scenario and failed all to give credence to this claim.

So what's the discussion about Creation Science not being as equally as viable as Evolution, given that they both have priori? But yet at the same time, Creation Scientists provide empirical evidence that is rejected by Evolutionary scientists

No there isn't empirical evidence for Creation Scientists claims it is quite the opposite as the evidence says the biblical account for creation could not have happened as described. Peer-review is critical for scientific research to be taken seriously it must pass the muster of peer-review from non young-earth scientists. Normally, a peer-reviewed article which passes muster would be published in a leading journal such as from the Geological Society of America to date I am unaware of any such that support Creation Science claims. Evidence should be empirical to any person regardless of whether or not they are secular or religious. If it is only empirical evidence to a Creation Scientist eyes then it isn't empirical evidence at all.

Grimpachi
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Was any link in my post to a religious site?

Are you aware what this thread is about?

As your pictures are nothing more than sweeping generalizations, hence we read only one book, and that creationists don't need facts, your assertion is as false as it is misleading and simply parrotted.

Yet you are using sweeping generalizations about science by cherry picking.

I'm sorry, what? Who is making the accusation of dogma? Who is the accused? What is the accusation? Science, science, dogma.

Do you consider chiropractors to be scientists? I don't think you actually read the article

Chiropractors' reluctance to construe subluxation as hypothesis may derive in part from the limited consideration given to epistemology. Epistemology is that branch of philosophy, which deals with the nature of knowledge. Within the context of a clinical discipline such as chiropractic, epistemology addresses the means by which we may gain understanding about the nature of patients' problems, determine optimal methods of resolving or alleviating these problems, and appreciate the mechanisms by which successful interventions are accomplished. Chiropractors have traditionally offered a wide range of epistemological and reasoning strategies [7,71-80], including divine or spiritual inspiration, uncritical empiricism, uncritical rationalism (also referred to as "deductive science"

For whatever the reasons, many in the chiropractic profession in the North American continent and in Australia and New Zealand remain committed to a dogmatic orientation to subluxation, its supposed health consequences and the putative benefits to be derived from subluxation-correction [17-19]. Although the percentage of chiropractors who adhere to dogmatism is not known, a 1994 sample of Canadian chiropractors was intriguing [86]. While 86% believed that chiropractors' methods should be validated, 74% disagreed that controlled trials are the best way to

And here you go, some more about science dogma

Again did you read the article?

Finally, dogmatism does not refer to a system
of beliefs, but to a system of norms; not to the specific content of knowledge but
to the way that scientific knowledge is authenticated, organised, and transmitted
by scientific communities

I feel bad that this takes a psychological toll on people to have to come to terms that their science heroes are displaying dogmatic beliefs to the point of completely disregarding and rejecting any empirical evidence that does not follow what they have been taught.

And I feel bad that you didn't comprehend what the articles were saying.

Sasquatch, empirical evidence now supports its existence

OK sure, whatever.

Look you seem to be all over the place and quote mined from some sources after doing a google search where you never took the time to digest the information within. You tried to construct a scenario and failed all to give credence to this claim.

So what's the discussion about Creation Science not being as equally as viable as Evolution, given that they both have priori? But yet at the same time, Creation Scientists provide empirical evidence that is rejected by Evolutionary scientists

No there isn't empirical evidence for Creation Scientists claims it is quite the opposite as the evidence says the biblical account for creation could not have happened as described. Peer-review is critical for scientific research to be taken seriously it must pass the muster of peer-review from non young-earth scientists. Normally, a peer-reviewed article which passes muster would be published in a leading journal such as from the Geological Society of America to date I am unaware of any such that support Creation Science claims. Evidence should be empirical to any person regardless of whether or not they are secular or religious. If it is only empirical evidence to a Creation Scientist eyes then it isn't empirical evidence at all.

Grimpachi

One of the allowable points in debates is prove whether or not the other side has the proper credentials for making claims. Are you saying then that science hold the ultimate authority and absolute truth regarding creation or evolution? Even they themselves don't make that claim.

Therefore no matter what scientific evidence is presented it should be presented with the idea that no dogmatic priori is involved, and right now you can't prove that, but I have indeed proven that from the scientific community itself. I'm sorry if you can't take the admissions from the scientific community that dogma is priori.

What you can do is now say a particular scientist has shown it to be true to your satisfaction, but you would have to prove that he has no dogmatic priori.

Once you say it is absolute from a scientific perspective, then you have to prove it is absolute from a scientific perspective. And no scientist is able to do so. It is unfortunate, but true that dogma pervades science. How many more websites must be shown to you?

Until you can prove no scientific dogma exists, then any arguments you base on science must be taken with the same skeptical view. That's fair in discussion or debate.

WarminIndy

Grimpachi
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Was any link in my post to a religious site?

Are you aware what this thread is about?

As your pictures are nothing more than sweeping generalizations, hence we read only one book, and that creationists don't need facts, your assertion is as false as it is misleading and simply parrotted.

Yet you are using sweeping generalizations about science by cherry picking.



I'm sorry, what? Who is making the accusation of dogma? Who is the accused? What is the accusation? Science, science, dogma.

Do you consider chiropractors to be scientists? I don't think you actually read the article

Chiropractors' reluctance to construe subluxation as hypothesis may derive in part from the limited consideration given to epistemology. Epistemology is that branch of philosophy, which deals with the nature of knowledge. Within the context of a clinical discipline such as chiropractic, epistemology addresses the means by which we may gain understanding about the nature of patients' problems, determine optimal methods of resolving or alleviating these problems, and appreciate the mechanisms by which successful interventions are accomplished. Chiropractors have traditionally offered a wide range of epistemological and reasoning strategies [7,71-80], including divine or spiritual inspiration, uncritical empiricism, uncritical rationalism (also referred to as "deductive science"

For whatever the reasons, many in the chiropractic profession in the North American continent and in Australia and New Zealand remain committed to a dogmatic orientation to subluxation, its supposed health consequences and the putative benefits to be derived from subluxation-correction [17-19]. Although the percentage of chiropractors who adhere to dogmatism is not known, a 1994 sample of Canadian chiropractors was intriguing [86]. While 86% believed that chiropractors' methods should be validated, 74% disagreed that controlled trials are the best way to

And here you go, some more about science dogma

Again did you read the article?

Finally, dogmatism does not refer to a system
of beliefs, but to a system of norms; not to the specific content of knowledge but
to the way that scientific knowledge is authenticated, organised, and transmitted
by scientific communities

I feel bad that this takes a psychological toll on people to have to come to terms that their science heroes are displaying dogmatic beliefs to the point of completely disregarding and rejecting any empirical evidence that does not follow what they have been taught.

And I feel bad that you didn't comprehend what the articles were saying.

Sasquatch, empirical evidence now supports its existence

OK sure, whatever.

Look you seem to be all over the place and quote mined from some sources after doing a google search where you never took the time to digest the information within. You tried to construct a scenario and failed all to give credence to this claim.

So what's the discussion about Creation Science not being as equally as viable as Evolution, given that they both have priori? But yet at the same time, Creation Scientists provide empirical evidence that is rejected by Evolutionary scientists

No there isn't empirical evidence for Creation Scientists claims it is quite the opposite as the evidence says the biblical account for creation could not have happened as described. Peer-review is critical for scientific research to be taken seriously it must pass the muster of peer-review from non young-earth scientists. Normally, a peer-reviewed article which passes muster would be published in a leading journal such as from the Geological Society of America to date I am unaware of any such that support Creation Science claims. Evidence should be empirical to any person regardless of whether or not they are secular or religious. If it is only empirical evidence to a Creation Scientist eyes then it isn't empirical evidence at all.

Grimpachi

One of the allowable points in debates is prove whether or not the other side has the proper credentials for making claims. Are you saying then that science hold the ultimate authority and absolute truth regarding creation or evolution? Even they themselves don't make that claim.

Therefore no matter what scientific evidence is presented it should be presented with the idea that no dogmatic priori is involved, and right now you can't prove that, but I have indeed proven that from the scientific community itself. I'm sorry if you can't take the admissions from the scientific community that dogma is priori.

What you can do is now say a particular scientist has shown it to be true to your satisfaction, but you would have to prove that he has no dogmatic priori.

Once you say it is absolute from a scientific perspective, then you have to prove it is absolute from a scientific perspective. And no scientist is able to do so. It is unfortunate, but true that dogma pervades science. How many more websites must be shown to you?

Until you can prove no scientific dogma exists, then any arguments you base on science must be taken with the same skeptical view. That's fair in discussion or debate. And peer-review itself is based on the same dogmatic principles, you know this as well as I.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Grimpachi

One of the allowable points in debates is prove whether or not the other side has the proper credentials for making claims. Are you saying then that science hold the ultimate authority and absolute truth regarding creation or evolution? Even they themselves don't make that claim.

When you say "they" do you mean scientists? You are correct in saying they do not claim to be an ultimate authority on the universe. They however have been able to verify or dismiss based on evidence if biblical creation stories are possible in the universe based off of the sciences.

Therefore no matter what scientific evidence is presented it should be presented with the idea that no dogmatic priori is involved, and right now you can't prove that,

I don't need to. Good science is fasifiable and repeatable. If I want to verify the science is good I can do the the science myself.

but I have indeed proven that from the scientific community itself. I'm sorry if you can't take the admissions from the scientific community that dogma is priori.

You have proven that you quote mined and didn't even know what it was you were quoting.

You missed where it was explained that for the purpose of the article the word Dogma was:

Finally, dogmatism does not refer to a system
of beliefs, but to a system of norms; not to the specific content of knowledge but
to the way that scientific knowledge is authenticated, organised, and transmitted
by scientific communities

He made up his own definition. Perhaps you are under the presumption that all things printed on the internet een sites that have thesis papers are actual scientific articles. On top of that you quote mined that article from the "EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PRAGMATISM AND AMERICAN PHILOSOPHY". If you had a strong case for what you claim you wouldn't need to be so deceptive about it.

What you can do is now say a particular scientist has shown it to be true to your satisfaction, but you would have to prove that he has no dogmatic priori.

No I could simply repeat the scince and verify. This goes back to good science being falsifiable.

Fal´si`fi`a`ble
a. 1. Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or corrupted.
2. able to be proven false, and therefore testable; as, most religious beliefs are not falsifiable, and are therefor outside the scope of experimental science.

Once you say it is absolute from a scientific perspective, then you have to prove it is absolute from a scientific perspective.

You have it backwards. absolutes are first proven before an absolute would be claimed in science. Perhaps you are not familiar with the scientific method.

And no scientist is able to do so.

Nor would one worth their muster do so they way you claim.

It is unfortunate, but true that dogma pervades science.

You keep saying that.

How many more websites must be shown to you?

You will have to do better than a philosophy journal or a rallying cry to the chiropractic community I can tell you that much.

Until you can prove no scientific dogma exists, then any arguments you base on science must be taken with the same skeptical view.

Are you familiar with proving a negative, negative proof, or what is called the cosmic teapot? Because it seems as if you are new to this.

an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

That's fair in discussion or debate.

The burden of proof lay with you to show it is dogmatic not with those that disagree. Read the above to understand why.

And peer-review itself is based on the same dogmatic principles, you know this as well as I.

Honestly I think you have somehow confused the scientific method with what you call dogma. Hopefully you will take the time to familiarize yourself with some of the definitions and processes I have provided, and or linked in this post to gain a better understanding of these subjects.

Many conclusions reached through the scientific method are in direct conflict with a literal reading of almost every religious text, but this should not be a reason to reject the scientific method. Science doesn’t care what it discovers about the universe, only that its conclusions are supported by the evidence. If scientists were just a bunch of dogmatic, fundamental atheists, if such a title even makes sense, the Big Bang theory would have never survived.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Grimpachi

Respectfully, as you maintain science as nothing more than verifiable observation and yet the websites offered to you are not accepted by you as proof of scientific dogma, then you are dogmatic in your claim.

Therefore you must, by terms of discussion or debate, as the OP is questioning who won the debate, how can either one win if they both hold priori dogmas? You can't accuse Ken Hamm of that unless you are willing to take the middle road and concede that perhaps you should be neutral as well listening to the debate, because Nye also has dogmatic priori.

These websites are not Creationist websites, but science websites, so if the scientific community states that dogma and priori are part of the problem within the scientific community, then that isn't my problem. That's the scientific community's problem and yours if you are unwilling to see their own admission of guilt.

So, in that light, as a person who understands that science has dogmatic scientists, and therefore I am skeptical of them, is acceptable as your claim of skepticism toward my views. And since the Popper Kuhn debate clearly shows some scientists, regardless of whether or not it is agreed by general consensus, will hold to dogma. And if you unwilling to see that, it isn't my problem.

Stephen Hawking

We cannot distinguish what is real about the universe without a theory…[But]…it makes no sense to ask if a theory corresponds to reality, because we do not know what reality is independent of a theory…. How can we know what is real, independent of a theory or model with which to interpret it? (1993: 38, 40.)

So a theory is fundamental to reality, then can be fit into the framework of the theory to make it seem reality, when in essence it is still only a theory. And as Stephen Hawking also says

The theory always came first, put forward from the desire to have an elegant and consistent mathematical model. The theory then makes predictions, which can be tested by observation. If the observations agree with the predictions, that doesn’t prove the theory; but the theory survives to make further predictions, which again are tested against observation. If the observations don’t agree with the predictions, one abandons the theory. Or rather, that is what is supposed to happen. In practice, people are very reluctant to give up a theory in which they have invested a lot of time and effort. They usually start by questioning the accuracy of the observations. If that fails, they try to modify the theory in an ad hoc manner. Eventually the theory becomes a creaking and ugly edifice. Then someone suggests a new theory in which all the awkward observations are explained in an elegant and natural manner (1993: 36).

They modify the theory in an ad hoc manner. Then a new theory comes along and the scientist has to readjust their original theory. Do you see now how the theory of Evolution is nothing more than just a theory?

As Miller (1983: 10) has exhorted: ‘It is the perpetuation of errors that interferes with our understanding; and it is this, rather than their perpetration, that we must exert ourselves determinedly to avert’. Influential scientists can harm their discipline if they lose the desire to challenge the dogmas they have created.

These are very preeminent scientist who freely admit dogma in science and how it is a problem. The bigger issue is not that the dogma holds scientists to established views, but that people like you repeat their dogmatic views as truth. I don't need a chart to tell me how science works, I already know. What I am saying is that you need to address dogma within science and stop taking science as truth or verifiable, when scientists can't even do that in all cases. Therefore, the theory of Evolution is just a theory.

It's not cherry picking, it's that it is so pervasive within the scientific community, where do we start? I didn't simply show you the website of subluxation because it is neither pro-Chiropracty or con-Chiropracty, the issue was the fact that dogma was the accusation. That's my point, if you take science as more true than religion based on scientists who have proven dogma, then it isn't theory on my part, it's fact, whether you agree or not. Dogma in science exists.

reply to post by WarminIndy

websites offered to you are not accepted by you as proof of scientific dogma

Websites with personal opinions are not evidence that science is dogmatic. By the way, this is not a scientific website like you claimed. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PRAGMATISM AND AMERICAN PHILOSOPHY Not sure where you got the one titled "Subluxation: dogma or science?". That is usually a bad sign when you cant find the journal home page. I did look it up and the paper is part of a debate "not an example of science".

Lets look at your article about MIT that you quote mined.

In a recent guest column ["Student-Endorsed Relativism Inconsistent with Morality," Feb. 12], Marc Carlin bemoans the prevalence of what he calls "moral relativism" among the students here at MIT. He argues that a group of students so familiar with the natural sciences should instead embrace a doctrine which he attributes to these disciplines: that absolute, timeless truths exist, and that human reason, properly applied, can discover and apply these lofty principles.

I think Carlin misunderstands the character of science, and of morality. Unlike him, I am pleased to find that MIT students shy away from the notion that Absolute Truths exist and can be discovered. To me, this indicates that science is being taught and done well, and that students here are not indoctrinated with the misconceptions about science and moral judgment which Carlin exhibits.

Seems you misrepresented things there as well. Actually I went through all your sources and either you didn't understand what you read, or you purposely misrepresented quotes. If it is the latter it should be against T&C.

Serrious Fail.

Therefore you must, by terms of discussion or debate, as the OP is questioning who won the debate, how can either one win if they both hold priori dogmas? You can't accuse Ken Hamm of that unless you are willing to take the middle road and concede that perhaps you should be neutral as well listening to the debate, because Nye also has dogmatic priori.

Actually no. You have not demonstrated that science is dogmatic nor have you demonstrated that Nye held to a dogma.

These websites are not Creationist websites, but science websites,

I think one of the sites was but not the others as I have already pointed out. You are trying to say science is dogmatic correct? You have not provided evidence that science is dogmatic as of yet.

So, in that light, as a person who understands that science has dogmatic scientists

Oh...... OK I see where you have gone wrong.

There may be some scientists that are indeed dogmatic however that in no way implicates science as science is not a being nor is it dogmatic.

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/Submit
noun
1.
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Science is both a body of knowledge and a process.( see scientific method for the process of collecting that body of knowledge.)

As far as you going on about a scientific theory see my signature to gain a better understanding of what such entails.

So a "scientist" could have their own dogma but "science" itself does not have dogma. Please go back and familiarize yourself with the definitions I have provided as they should help you understand. After you have done so if you have questions I will do my best to help you comprehend.

reply to post by Grimpachi


While you are attempting to dispute my claims, even Popper himself teaches that dogmatic science exists. No, I mispresented nothing, proving once again that when it is brought up to challenge your own dogmatism, then it must be discredited. Good thing you looked for the links. No misrepresentation on my part. While you view the websites, as Popper would say, you have looked for things that already fit into your worldview, then when a challenge is made, you hold to your priori, which is bad science according to Popper.

Who is Popper anyway? I didn't see you challenge anything on that. So let's see exactly who Popper was...

This is a reading from his work, Popper is well-respected.



Falsifability In Principle states that neither the past nor future can be measured. The dogmas choose not to accept Gestalt Shift. Either you see one thing or another, but if you base all of your science on your own preconceived ideas, then that's how you will interpret all the data presented to you.

Even this professor Carlo Rovellimakes this statement.

The very expression 'scientifically proven' is a contradiction in terms. There is nothing that is scientifically proven. The core of science is the deep awareness that we have wrong ideas, we have prejudices. We have ingrained prejudices. In our conceptual structure for grasping reality there might be something not appropriate, something we may have to revise to understand better. So at any moment, we have a vision of reality that is effective, it's good, it's the best we have found so far. It's the most credible we have found so far, its mostly correct.

But at the same time it's not taken for certain, and any element of it is a priori open for revision. Why do we have this continuous…? On the one hand, we have this brain, and it has evolved for millions of years. It has evolved for us, for basically running the savannah and run after and eat deer and try not to be eaten by the lions. We have a brain that is tuned to meters and hours, which is not particularly well-tuned to think about atoms and galaxies. So we have to get out of that.

Evolution is not scientifically proven. Even when he says evolution based on his own priori, he says we have to get out of that idea that is not well-tuned for seeking atoms and galaxies.

If I can make a final comment about this way of thinking about science, or two final comments: One is that science is not about the data. The empirical content of scientific theory is not what is relevant. The data serves to suggest the theory, to confirm the theory, to disconfirm the theory, to prove the theory wrong. But these are the tools that we use. What interests us is the content of the theory. What interests us is what the theory says about the world.

Empirical data is not what science is about anyway. Therefore, when a person bases an argument for a theory based on "empirical evidence", then it is not certain and should not be taken as certain. Is evolution to you based on empirical evidence that you hold to be certain? If that's the case, then you are relying on something not even admitted as certain. Evolution then becomes less certain. Empirical evidence doesn't matter.

So you assume including this last man's mention of evolution defeats my argument, however it merely bolsters it because this man cannot even rely on the certainty of science to prove the theory.

science changes it's mind all the time.

hard to back anything about it. why bet the rent on something that will lose tomorrow?

i like science, everyone does but it's not the end all for everything.

ya think faith has been around longer than science?

and how does one equate both?

we are clever monkey's when it comes to tinkering. don't forget, we aren't even a level 1 civilization yet. lol!
yet we know all the answers.

if you never been to afghanistan, how do you know it is really there?

we have the Word and it has plenty of stuff to discuss for 1000's of years, but the Word doesn't change.

you have data and the interpretation is key. same with religion. some just try to shoehorn their beliefs into it, on both sides.

tsingtao
science changes it's mind all the time.

hard to back anything about it. why bet the rent on something that will lose tomorrow?

i like science, everyone does but it's not the end all for everything.

ya think faith has been around longer than science?

and how does one equate both?

we are clever monkey's when it comes to tinkering. don't forget, we aren't even a level 1 civilization yet. lol!
yet we know all the answers.

if you never been to afghanistan, how do you know it is really there?

we have the Word and it has plenty of stuff to discuss for 1000's of years, but the Word doesn't change.

you have data and the interpretation is key. same with religion. some just try to shoehorn their beliefs into it, on both sides.

I think it would be better if both sides said "This is the explanation that is most plausible to me", like another poster did when he introduced abio-genesis and said why he thinks abio-genesis is an explanation.

I addressed the pictures posted by grimpachi, because he was making an absolute statement, that Bill Nye needs facts and we don't. I would say that neither Nye nor Hamm won, because both were making absolute statements. They could say they are led to believe this way, then both would be acceptable, if opposing, views.