... cont - and if the supporting explanations are unsupported they are not facts as is declared in the caricature -- if you try to find facts that support a conclusion the mechanism works --- if you invent unsupported explanations and pose them as facts it doesn't work --- like the caricature itself....
Creationists take several false approaches. 1. deny facts. 2. invent "facts." 3. misinterpret evidence. They have no choice because there is a mountain of foundational evidence for theories of evolution, and none for a CreeATor. Most of those who parrot the creationist websites know almost no science, so they cannot even evaluate the lies that they are regurgiquoting.
@musekiteer i know they do - that's all true - it doesn't change the fact that the caricature took the wrong approach ... - i didn't argue anything else - the caricature takes a valid mechanism and shows it as invalid without showing why the creationist approach to the mechanism makes it invalid in their case ...
Then why don't you take your critique to Dr. Forrest herself? I'm sure that a professor of philosophy would appreciate your input. I happen to disagree with you. You have made criticisms, but you haven't made a case. Repetition does not make your point valid.
The only problem i always seem to have with videos like these is a single caricature they often use as it is ill designed - the one with the creationist side saying - "Here's the conclusion lets find the facts to support it" - this isn't an error in judgment - I'm not defending creationists with this - this can be done - it's found in expert systems and artificial intelligence - the problem is that creationists invent the supporting explanations out of thin air which are themselves unsupported
Whenever he would assign me a chore my grandfather would always ask "Now, do you understand everything you know about what you're doing?" before I started.
Asking myself that question has been a practice which has served me well over the years
Unfortunately, some (of a type that shall remain nameless) assume that they do understand and know everything despite knowing very little and understanding even less.
Have you seen the video about the Dunning-Kruger Effect? Basically, the less we know, the less aware we are of how little we know:
This confuses me a bit. I thought Forrest was one of the NCSE members who have been highly critical of atheists who have been openly antagonistic towards religion. No?
It's a while since I watched the original uploads on the hoffmanallison channel. I am not aware of her being critical of anti-religious atheists, but that does not mean that she has not.
Are you sure that it's not Eugenie Scott who has been critical? I vaguely recall that Genie was a little critical. She also believes in NOMA, but considering the political demands of her position, I'll forgive her that ;)
I know that Genie was one of them and wasn't confusing the two. But I could be wrong about Forrest. I forgive her.... I just think it's weak. If you don't want to go head-to-head, that's completely fine - maybe even appropriate in a case such as hers. Just don't slam people who choose to do so. That's a little harder to forgive.
This is a delayed response. I agree that it is inappropriate. It is also not good policy to risk alienating one's allies. It's not that individuals such as Coyne will cease to be allies, it is more that accommodationism can backfire. Every time that any a scientist or evolutionist panders to religious pressures, that can be taken as a sign of weakness of the scientific position and converse strength of religion.
... cont - and if the supporting explanations are unsupported they are not facts as is declared in the caricature -- if you try to find facts that support a conclusion the mechanism works --- if you invent unsupported explanations and pose them as facts it doesn't work --- like the caricature itself....
symelian 1 year ago
@symelian
Creationists take several false approaches. 1. deny facts. 2. invent "facts." 3. misinterpret evidence. They have no choice because there is a mountain of foundational evidence for theories of evolution, and none for a CreeATor. Most of those who parrot the creationist websites know almost no science, so they cannot even evaluate the lies that they are regurgiquoting.
musekiteer 1 year ago 2
@musekiteer i know they do - that's all true - it doesn't change the fact that the caricature took the wrong approach ... - i didn't argue anything else - the caricature takes a valid mechanism and shows it as invalid without showing why the creationist approach to the mechanism makes it invalid in their case ...
symelian 1 year ago
@symelian
Then why don't you take your critique to Dr. Forrest herself? I'm sure that a professor of philosophy would appreciate your input. I happen to disagree with you. You have made criticisms, but you haven't made a case. Repetition does not make your point valid.
musekiteer 1 year ago
The only problem i always seem to have with videos like these is a single caricature they often use as it is ill designed - the one with the creationist side saying - "Here's the conclusion lets find the facts to support it" - this isn't an error in judgment - I'm not defending creationists with this - this can be done - it's found in expert systems and artificial intelligence - the problem is that creationists invent the supporting explanations out of thin air which are themselves unsupported
symelian 1 year ago
Whenever he would assign me a chore my grandfather would always ask "Now, do you understand everything you know about what you're doing?" before I started.
Asking myself that question has been a practice which has served me well over the years
TheMudbrooker 2 years ago
That's a good question!
Unfortunately, some (of a type that shall remain nameless) assume that they do understand and know everything despite knowing very little and understanding even less.
Have you seen the video about the Dunning-Kruger Effect? Basically, the less we know, the less aware we are of how little we know:
/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y
musekiteer 2 years ago
This confuses me a bit. I thought Forrest was one of the NCSE members who have been highly critical of atheists who have been openly antagonistic towards religion. No?
AncientAtheist 2 years ago
It's a while since I watched the original uploads on the hoffmanallison channel. I am not aware of her being critical of anti-religious atheists, but that does not mean that she has not.
Are you sure that it's not Eugenie Scott who has been critical? I vaguely recall that Genie was a little critical. She also believes in NOMA, but considering the political demands of her position, I'll forgive her that ;)
musekiteer 2 years ago
I know that Genie was one of them and wasn't confusing the two. But I could be wrong about Forrest. I forgive her.... I just think it's weak. If you don't want to go head-to-head, that's completely fine - maybe even appropriate in a case such as hers. Just don't slam people who choose to do so. That's a little harder to forgive.
AncientAtheist 2 years ago
This is a delayed response. I agree that it is inappropriate. It is also not good policy to risk alienating one's allies. It's not that individuals such as Coyne will cease to be allies, it is more that accommodationism can backfire. Every time that any a scientist or evolutionist panders to religious pressures, that can be taken as a sign of weakness of the scientific position and converse strength of religion.
musekiteer 2 years ago
Great job.
MrUnscientific 2 years ago
W00T!
To learn anything, you must first recognize that you know nothing...
TheReasonWhyGuy 2 years ago