Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:32 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 155 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Is Bill Nye really a "science guy" ? 
Author Message
Creative Writing Student


Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 31
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Is Bill Nye really a "science guy" ?
Interbane wrote:
Quote:
You've read through my links and they go against what YOU think, plain and simple.


And, there are articles and websites that agree with what I think. How should we decide which is correct? Do you not contemplate the differences, and instead just agree with what you already believe?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Barry wrote:
To think we evolved from some lower life form is ridiculous. LOL


That's a fallacy Barry.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

Barry wrote:
I think it stinks that you dismiss out of hand the millions, if not BILLIONS of people that believe God created man from the dust of the ground.


That's another fallacy Barry. Sentence after sentence.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

The fallacies you use in your reasoning mean your reasoning doesn't work. It's a fact born from the examples above. Such poor reasoning is how you develop and maintain false beliefs. You ARE wrong Barry, and your faulty reasoning is a sign you can't ignore. You can turn around and say WE'RE wrong, but the flaws in your reasoning suggest otherwise. Your last two replies to me were filled with fallacious reasoning. There's no reason to think the rest of your worldview isn't similarly faulty.

Quote:
But of course, your tens of thousands of scientists, that will say ANYTHING to keep their jobs and grant money, are right.


If you knew anything about the self-correcting nature of the scientific enterprise, you'd realize how silly this is. There is no vast conspiracy theory, Barry. The conclusions of science aren't born from a desire for more grant money. They're born from adherence to method. If money had the massive impact you believe, we'd be living in a very different world. Because in that world, money would trump the truth. The vast majority of scientists from all over the world would need to conspire in real time to subvert the results of their findings. The funding department of every government would need to believe the same thing, and influence the scientists in their countries in the same way, and even control their findings in detail. The coordination of belief is something we already know doesn't exist, especially across cultures and between governments, many of which are theocratic. Which means there is some other reason the entire world of scientists have arrived at the same conclusion - because it's true.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evil_Liber ... Conspiracy


Your whole argument is a fallacy. You, who may or may not believe in God, it really doesn't matter, are of the secular herd mentality. Meaning, you just CAN'T be wrong. Much like the whole Liberal (I am NOT saying you are a Liberal, I don't care one way or the other) movement this election. They just CAN'T have lost this election so they trot out one excuse after another while completely ignoring the fact that they had a WEAK candidate and an arrogant POTUS that had forced an unpopular agenda on a people that had just finally had enough. You THINK you have overwhelming evidence that really just doesn't hold up to REAL science. What REAL proof of evolution do you have?

There are several theories of evolution. Which is the correct one? Evolutionary scientist, Simon Conway Morris, said "When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: 'It happened.' Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd." http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7400816797

On February 9, 2007, Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, wrote:

“ "“The history of organic life is indemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else.” http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinis ... evolution/

So, there are many "theories" of evolution. You may not like these links, seeing they fly in the face of the deity of evolution. I mean, you have no evidence of evolution because you CANNOT demonstrate it. You CANNOT observe one whole species evolve into another one. That is why I really do not care that you smugly ridicule me or imply that I am not educated enough to dare debate you. lol I am past the childish "theory" that we somehow "evolved" from some lower life form. I don't need links or sources. It is an asinne theory that has been around since ancient times whem man first rebelled agaist his Creator.

Evolution is not so much a modern discovery as some of its advocates would have us believe. It made its appearance early in Greek philosophy, and maintained its position more or less, with the most diverse modifications, and frequently confused with the idea of emanation, until the close of ancient thought. The Greeks had, it is true, no term exactly equivalent to " evolution"; but when Thales asserts that all things originated from water; when Anaximenes calls air the principle of all things, regarding the subsequent process as a thinning or thickening, they must have considered individual beings and the phenomenal world as, a result of evolution, even if they did not carry the process out in detail. Anaximander is often regarded as a precursor of the modem theory of development. He deduces living beings, in a gradual development, from moisture under the influence of warmth, and suggests the view that men originated from animals of another sort, since if they had come into existence as human beings, needing fostering care for a long time, they would not have been able to maintain their existence. In Empedocles, as in Epicurus and Lucretius, who follow in Hs footsteps, there are rudimentary suggestions of the Darwinian theory in its broader sense; and here too, as with Darwin, the mechanical principle comes in; the process is adapted to a certain end by a sort of natural selection, without regarding nature as deliberately forming its results for these ends. http://www.iep.utm.edu/evolutio/


So, knock yourself out and stay in your little box. I broke out years ago and thank God I did.



Sun Jan 01, 2017 2:38 pm
Profile Email
Creative Writing Student


Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 31
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Is Bill Nye really a "science guy" ?
Chris OConnor wrote:
Great post, Interbane.

One thing I think would be helpful with logical fallacies is to dentify them when they occur AND give an example of that fallacy being committed where it clearly leads to an invalid conclusion. People that use bad reasoning are probably not ever going to go study logical inductive fallacies, suddenly realize their mistakes and then work towards becoming more reasonable.

But maybe with relatable examples of fallacies they might get it without having to go do the necessary research. Not that you or anyone else should have to provide such examples. That sure would be a lot of work for a forum post. But it seems to me like that might help.

I almost feel a fallacy website needs to be created that has each fallacy on a separate page (for easy linking) accompanied by a dozen easy to understand examples of the fallacy.

Maybe this site exists.

In reality poor thinkers still might not get the examples.


lol And it is arrogant thinkers that think they can't be wrong. Your theory of evolution is filled with fallacies. Poor reasoning and faulty science.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/philosop ... chemistry/



Sun Jan 01, 2017 2:56 pm
Profile Email
Creative Writing Student


Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 31
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Is Bill Nye really a "science guy" ?
Chris OConnor wrote:
One question I have is how you would rebut the argument that climate change believers are just jumping on the bandwagon and committing the argument ad populum fallacy.

Quote:
The ad populum fallacy is the appeal to the popularity of a claim as a reason for accepting it.

The number of people who believe a claim is irrelevant to its truth. Fifty million people can be wrong. In fact, millions of people have been wrong about many things: that the Earth is flat and motionless, for example, and that the stars are lights shining through holes in the sky.

The ad populum fallacy is also referred to as the bandwagon fallacy, the appeal to the mob, the democratic fallacy, and the appeal to popularity.

The ad populum fallacy is seductive because it appeals to our desire to belong and to conform, to our desire for security and safety. It is a common appeal in advertising and politics. A clever manipulator of the masses will try to seduce those who blithely assume that the majority is always right. Also seduced by this appeal will be the insecure, who may be made to feel guilty if they oppose the majority or feel strong by joining forces with large numbers of other uncritical thinkers.


There is clearly a difference between...

1. blindly accepting positions because those positions are popular and
2. trusting in positions held by qualified scientists in their relevant areas of expertise after peer-reviewed research

How would you argue that accepting the conclusions of climate scientists is not the ad populum fallacy?


This definitely will not fit into your worldview. Or, like Obama, do you believe climate change is "settled science" and anyone questioning it is overwhelmed with fallacy? lol

http://www.dailywire.com/news/9767/9-th ... on-bandler



Sun Jan 01, 2017 3:15 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6910
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1022
Thanked: 1966 times in 1585 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Is Bill Nye really a "science guy" ?
Chris wrote:
How would you argue that accepting the conclusions of climate scientists is not the ad populum fallacy?


It depends on what, exactly, you're appealing to. If you're appealing to the belief of these scientists, then it's a fallacy. If you're appealing, collectively, to the methods these scientists used, it's not a fallacy. Which means, you need to trust that they're actually doing their job and following procedure. Peer review does much of this trust work for us.

Any appeal can have an iceberg's worth of information underneath it which is required to avoid the fallacy. In climate science, you can dig deep into any and every piece of evidence. By extension, you're appealing to all these pieces of evidence. It's not perfect, but I can't see how there is a better method.

Quote:
One thing I think would be helpful with logical fallacies is to dentify them when they occur AND give an example of that fallacy being committed where it clearly leads to an invalid conclusion. People that use bad reasoning are probably not ever going to go study logical inductive fallacies, suddenly realize their mistakes and then work towards becoming more reasonable.


That won't help at all. For some reason, it doesn't matter when you point out that people's reasoning is wrong. It's as if they don't understand that they're reasoning is what leads to them being right or wrong. It just doesn't matter. Before these people accept the fact that they aren't reasoning correctly, they'll blame logic. The entire freaking school of logical thought is wrong in their mind. God is greater than logic, and they are correct even though they are being illogical.

Barry wrote:
Your whole argument is a fallacy.


Which fallacy, specifically? There are many, and I might have missed one. But I don't think I have. Instead, I think you don't really understand what a fallacy is, and you're falsely accusing me. Search through the database of fallacies(yes, there is a database of them), and point to the one I'm guilty of.

Otherwise, don't use the word, because you're abusing it. It's disheartening how often I see the words "logical", or "fallacy", or "knowledge" misused and abused by creationists. These words have meanings, and if you use them incorrectly, you are wrong. Learn what these words mean. Learn the application of the words.

Not a single letter of any word you write matters if your supporting reasoning isn't sound. Good reasoning is required. Absolutely essential. If your reasoning isn't sequitur, it's useless. None of these arguments from you mean a thing unless the methodology of your reasoning is on point. You're giving examples in every single post you make that show you have no clue what it means to use correct reasoning. You give a thousand words worth of poor reasoning. It doesn't matter how much you type. Learn the structure to proper reasoning before you go an inch further.

Quote:
So, there are many "theories" of evolution. You may not like these links, seeing they fly in the face of the deity of evolution.


There is only one theory of evolution. I've read the exact articles you linked already. Another creationist named Stahrwe came through booktalk and posted the same links, along with countless others. The same EXACT links. They aren't new, and they pose arguments that have already been overcome and dismissed on these forums. Which is why I said you should go through the archives.

But I know that's a pain in the butt and could be seen as a cop out. Pick a single argument from a single link(for brevity's sake), and I will respond to it again. Make your own argument on top of the link, so you're not just copy/pasting. Pick your trophy horse on a single specific topic and I'll gladly respond to it once again.

Quote:
You CANNOT observe one whole species evolve into another one.


It's happened many times now, in spite of the fact that we haven't had enough time to expect to witness speciation. We've been lucky. It shouldn't have been witnessed in the few hundred years we've had. Here's a question: Do you think we need to witness evolutionary speciation in action in order to know it happens?

Quote:
So, knock yourself out and stay in your little box. I broke out years ago and thank God I did.


I don't know what you intend with this statement, but you're most definitely still in a box. Bad reasoning leaves you trapped.

Quote:
This definitely will not fit into your worldview. Or, like Obama, do you believe climate change is "settled science" and anyone questioning it is overwhelmed with fallacy? lol

http://www.dailywire.com/news/9767/9-th ... on-bandler


Yeah, no

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:52 pm
Profile
Creative Writing Student


Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 31
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Is Bill Nye really a "science guy" ?
Interbane wrote:
Chris wrote:
How would you argue that accepting the conclusions of climate scientists is not the ad populum fallacy?


It depends on what, exactly, you're appealing to. If you're appealing to the belief of these scientists, then it's a fallacy. If you're appealing, collectively, to the methods these scientists used, it's not a fallacy. Which means, you need to trust that they're actually doing their job and following procedure. Peer review does much of this trust work for us.

Any appeal can have an iceberg's worth of information underneath it which is required to avoid the fallacy. In climate science, you can dig deep into any and every piece of evidence. By extension, you're appealing to all these pieces of evidence. It's not perfect, but I can't see how there is a better method.

Quote:
One thing I think would be helpful with logical fallacies is to dentify them when they occur AND give an example of that fallacy being committed where it clearly leads to an invalid conclusion. People that use bad reasoning are probably not ever going to go study logical inductive fallacies, suddenly realize their mistakes and then work towards becoming more reasonable.


That won't help at all. For some reason, it doesn't matter when you point out that people's reasoning is wrong. It's as if they don't understand that they're reasoning is what leads to them being right or wrong. It just doesn't matter. Before these people accept the fact that they aren't reasoning correctly, they'll blame logic. The entire freaking school of logical thought is wrong in their mind. God is greater than logic, and they are correct even though they are being illogical.

Barry wrote:
Your whole argument is a fallacy.


Which fallacy, specifically? There are many, and I might have missed one. But I don't think I have. Instead, I think you don't really understand what a fallacy is, and you're falsely accusing me. Search through the database of fallacies(yes, there is a database of them), and point to the one I'm guilty of.

Otherwise, don't use the word, because you're abusing it. It's disheartening how often I see the words "logical", or "fallacy", or "knowledge" misused and abused by creationists. These words have meanings, and if you use them incorrectly, you are wrong. Learn what these words mean. Learn the application of the words.

Not a single letter of any word you write matters if your supporting reasoning isn't sound. Good reasoning is required. Absolutely essential. If your reasoning isn't sequitur, it's useless. None of these arguments from you mean a thing unless the methodology of your reasoning is on point. You're giving examples in every single post you make that show you have no clue what it means to use correct reasoning. You give a thousand words worth of poor reasoning. It doesn't matter how much you type. Learn the structure to proper reasoning before you go an inch further.

Quote:
So, there are many "theories" of evolution. You may not like these links, seeing they fly in the face of the deity of evolution.


There is only one theory of evolution. I've read the exact articles you linked already. Another creationist named Stahrwe came through booktalk and posted the same links, along with countless others. The same EXACT links. They aren't new, and they pose arguments that have already been overcome and dismissed on these forums. Which is why I said you should go through the archives.

But I know that's a pain in the butt and could be seen as a cop out. Pick a single argument from a single link(for brevity's sake), and I will respond to it again. Make your own argument on top of the link, so you're not just copy/pasting. Pick your trophy horse on a single specific topic and I'll gladly respond to it once again.

Quote:
You CANNOT observe one whole species evolve into another one.


It's happened many times now, in spite of the fact that we haven't had enough time to expect to witness speciation. We've been lucky. It shouldn't have been witnessed in the few hundred years we've had. Here's a question: Do you think we need to witness evolutionary speciation in action in order to know it happens?

Quote:
So, knock yourself out and stay in your little box. I broke out years ago and thank God I did.


I don't know what you intend with this statement, but you're most definitely still in a box. Bad reasoning leaves you trapped.

Quote:
This definitely will not fit into your worldview. Or, like Obama, do you believe climate change is "settled science" and anyone questioning it is overwhelmed with fallacy? lol

http://www.dailywire.com/news/9767/9-th ... on-bandler


Yeah, no

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias


lol YOU say don't believe everything you read on the internet? Pot, kettle, black. Look, in a nutshell. I believe God is the beginning of life. You don't. I believe you are wrong, period. Darwin was wrong. Period. You require billions of years to back your claim. How easy is that? I believe the world is around 4 billion years old but mankind only happened on the scene around 15-20 thousand years ago. As we are NOW. No evolution needed. You look down your nose at anything that disagrees with your little worldview. Sorry if I burst your bubble. You can quit laughing now. I couldn't care less what you think. You and me both will die one day. That we can agree on. This debate will continue long after that. You will still be wrong.



Mon Jan 02, 2017 12:33 am
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 155 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 post attachments in this forum

Search for:

BookTalk.org Newsletter 



Site Links 
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Info for Authors & Publishers
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!
IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

Featured Books

Books by New Authors


*

FACTS is a select group of active BookTalk.org members passionate about promoting Freethought, Atheism, Critical Thinking and Science.

Apply to join FACTS
See who else is in FACTS







BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.



Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2016. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank