Yes, I know, topics named after members are typically B&M material. I'll try to keep this as friendly as possible.

Lysander, you seem to want to contradict me at every opportunity. Your arguments are generally sound, though at times you seem to completely miss something.

I will concede to your arguments concerning the theory/law bit. The problem is mostly a matter of semantics, and the quibbling is not really helping anyone.

I do have one major problem with your arguments. You claim that arguments over the validity of theories are baseless, that there is "only data."

Humans are unable to view data without interpreting it. Perception is our only link to reality, and people percieve things in different ways. Thus, the argument is not over whether something happens, but what the results mean.

By the way, this is an internet discussion forum, not a scientific document. There is no need to use words like "egregious induction" when something like "widespread misinformation" would make your point in a simpler fashion. I'm not looking to make enemies, but you come across as a bit of a snob. Sorry.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThetaReactor:
Lysander, you seem to want to contradict me at every opportunity.

---

It's not you. If you say something I agree with, I will certainly not contradict you. And actually, the only topic on which I've expressed disagreement with you is theory/law (and implicitly, evolution). It doesn't matter who says it, it could be Stalin, or the Pope, or Brad Pitt, I would still disagree and act on it. It's not personal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThetaReactor:
Your arguments are generally sound, though at times you seem to completely miss something.

---

I ask you, in all seriousness, to point these times out, for my own good. I try to correct people when possible, and I appreciate reciprocation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThetaReactor:
I will concede to your arguments concerning the theory/law bit.

---

Thank you. That's rare on forums such as this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThetaReactor:
The problem is mostly a matter of semantics, and the quibbling is not really helping anyone.

---

I don't get why people treat semantics as though it were always trivial. In some case, it is, of course, but in other cases, such as this, it's of paramount importance. You made a major worldview decision based on semantics.

And actually, it seems that the quibbling may have helped you. Presumably you won't say anything is "just a theory" anymore.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThetaReactor:
You claim that arguments over the validity of theories are baseless, that there is "only data."

---

I never claimed that arguments over the validity of theories are baseless. What I said was that there are no arguments for evolution. I am using arguments in the sense of logical arguments. The only "arguments" for evolution are observation and analysis.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThetaReactor:
By the way, this is an internet discussion forum, not a scientific document.
There is no need to use words like "egregious induction" when something like "widespread misinformation" would make your point in a simpler fashion.

---

Well, I wouldn't say no need, because "egregious induction" and "widespread misinformation" mean two completely different things.

I'm not a big fan of "dumbing it down." I've never done it, and I'm not about to start.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThetaReactor:
I'm not looking to make enemies, but you come across as a bit of a snob. Sorry.

---

If being confident in one's position and arguing for said position in a fairly eloquent manner using a decent vocabularly means one is a snob, then so be it.

Now about the arguments and evidence against evolution...


[This message has been edited by Lysander (edited 10-18-2002).]

HOLY SHIT! Did I just experience some honest and intelligent dialogue here?
Wait! Lemmee check...is this the totse discussion board?
Damn! I thought I was on the wrong board!

quote:

---

I ask you, in all seriousness, to point these times out, for my own good. I try to correct people when possible, and I appreciate reciprocation.

---

Just small things. For instance, the flat-earth bit. I said that it was a great example of society influencing science. You replied by saying "No, it's not. The idea that the Earth is flat did not come from science, but from religion."

Round-earth theory was suppressed by the religious leaders. In Greece, where there wasn't religious opposition to the new idea, it was accepted. Thus, society was limiting science in those areas where Judeo-Christianity was prevalent. You disagreed and then reinforced my point.

Theta back in those days relgoin influeced the flat earth theory, until science made the round earth model.

CTR

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThetaReactor:
Just small things. For instance, the flat-earth bit. I said that it was a great example of society influencing science. You replied by saying "No, it's not. The idea that the Earth is flat did not come from science, but from religion."

Round-earth theory was suppressed by the religious leaders. In Greece, where there wasn't religious opposition to the new idea, it was accepted. Thus, society was limiting science in those areas where Judeo-Christianity was prevalent. You disagreed and then reinforced my point.

---

Me: It is a great misconception that everyone thought that the Earth was flat. That was pretty much limited to Judeo-Christianity and certain primitive cultures. The Greeks, for example, knew the Earth was round.

You: This is a great example of sociological influences on science.

From this, your statement must have been in response to one of the following:

1. It is a great misconception that everyone thought that the Earth was flat.
2. That was pretty much limited to Judeo-Christianity and certain primitive cultures.
3. The Greeks, for example, knew the Earth was round.

Or some combination thereof.

If you were in fact referring to the Christian suppression of heliocentricity, I don't see how it's relevant to this discussion, though I did address that after you brought it up.

The idea that the earth is flat originated in religion, and there was no real opposition or attempted suppression of spherical earth theory. There was no good argument against a spherical earth, and many for it, unlike Coperican heliocentricity, which had several problems, along with attempting to explain it within the framework of Aristotelian physics.

So yes, the suppression of heliocentricity is an example of societal influence on the dissemination of scientific thought, but I really don't see the relevance to either evolution or the difference between theory, law and hypothesis.

Now, have you any arguments or evidence against evolution, or not?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lysander:
If being confident in one's position and arguing for said position in a fairly eloquent manner using a decent vocabularly means one is a snob, then so be it.

---

well said.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richy:
well said.

---

Thank you.