Dave. while you have raised some good points, and I have enjoyed our debates at times, Do you start these threads so that you can berate and belittle anyone who disagrees with you ? If you want to change peoples minds then surely the way to do it is by gently pointing out their arguement may be flawed instead of being so arrogant and aggresive, just a thought.
Dubz
did you actually read how this conversation started and continued?
You people are so certain that what you say is true, and "it's a fact". You say that science is what you say it is and that it's a fact, so opinions on what people think it is just doesn't matter.
So science is something that's there, just like water. The same thing, really.
Congratulations, you have solved in one single thread on a Travis board a debate that has been going on for ages. And it's still going on. Where have you been all these centuries? Please, inform every scientist, every philosopher in the world that you know what they have been trying to figure out all their lives: the right answer.
Not only you seem to know the one and only truth about what science is, the connection between science and men, and how science is or is not responsible of its consequences, BUT you also happen to know the truth about what caused the holocaust. So apparently it was the result of the will of a crazy man, or bunch of men, who happened to have gained power in Germany in the 30s.
It's good to know. You should also warn all those historians, sociologists, philosophers, psychologists and all kinds of professionals who have been arguing and debating this for years and are still doing so.
Please do inform the scientific and intellectual community of the world, and prevent all these people from continuing doing pointless research and writing tons of books about these issues, because the answer, the truth, is so obvious. And it's a fact.
Point 2:
I have NEVER in ANY of my posts implied that the reason that the holocaust happened was because of the theory of evolution. Let alone saying that it's the one and only reason or that it's the theory of evolution's fault that holocaust happened. WTF???
I only said that it was the scientific way nazis justified it. It's not a linear connection, and historical processes like this one always have multiple causes, neither of which is the theory of evolution.
I said this before and I'll say it one last time: Saying that the nazis used a scientific theory to justify a genocide IS NOT THE SAME THING as saying that the scientific theory caused the genocide. It's more than obvious, but apparently my English tends to lead people to think that it is the same thing. It is not and I never said it was. So there's absolutely NO point for me in arguing something I never said and never would.
And finally, I don't think myself that the theory of evolution justifies a genocide, so don't bother pointing out that it's a flawed argument to me: go and argue with the scientists who deffended that connection in the first half of the XXth century, and with all of those who thought it was right (just like scientists and people before the Copernican Revolution, who thought the earth was the centre of the universe and thought they were right, and who considered that science provided enough evidence to prove they were right).
Anyway, thanks for enlightening me!
what you are saying is the same as equating mathematics as being the scientiffic way nazis culled masses of jews,because they kept records. mathematics is science too.the nazis discussed lots of facts and figures to do with capturing,working,torturing and killing jews. so is this as resposible in the reasoning for the holocaust as a/the theory for evolution?
and i doubt the holocaust was peer reviewed by scientists of many different races creeds cultures etc. and or repeated in contolled eviroments all over the world, again by every denomination. that may have given the game away for uncle adolf no?
i dont really care about evolution to be honest, i only commented becuase some of you seem to not understand the deffinition of some things you talk about,which reminds me of religious people as a generalisation, always talking about what they believe,and never really understanding it.you say dave is closed and beatle is of the same opinion,therfore closed.dave started the thread, and as i have seen him mention, is a scientist.both of these lead me to believe that he isnt really closed, by initiating the subject he asks for opinions, and obviously is going to express his own.he has also said he does and must to be a valid scientist concead that there are no absolutes, ( truths or otherwise )there is only the best possible answer at the time based on all of the available evidence,being subject to peer review and repetition.
if i want i can invent a theory to fit an answer that is already observable.and if i say it in a convoluted enough way,like most religious texts for example, someone of a demented nature ( person A ) can decide to read some different meaning into the origional meaning. so if that did happen, and person A killed person B, does that make what my theory was explaining, resposible? or is it a scapegoat used crudely by person A in some attmpt to cover their actions?
well really it doesnt matter, since what was being explained by my new theory was already in place.so neither the theory nor the fact are at fault, the person who doesnt understand them and is trying to use them as a reason/excuse for their actions is at fault.
I'm sorry to say it but I'm assuming he doesn't have a rebuttle to any of this, tryadictionary.
Which is a shame because I genuinely want to know what he means - I'm actually so confused as to what his point is I'm on the edge of my seat trying to work it out or be told.
(and that really isn't sarcasm - and I know saying that last thing made it sound like it is, and so does this, but its not - urgh - its not sarcasm)
Sorry Dave, I didn't reply before because I've been bussy.
That is, assuming you were talking about me on your last post. But I'm a "she", not a "he". I'm Juli, from Argentina. Nice to meet you :o)
Anyway, back to the subject...
DavesUrMan wrote:
Right, I now have absolutely no idea what it is you're trying to say - the initial question is "evolution or...?" - as in, are you happy to accept evolution as a scientific proveable fact, or does, eg, the bible and gensis, impede you from accepting it.
My answer is still the same one that was on my first post.
I'm an atheist, so no bible or genesis for me.
I believe that evolution is the best theory we have so far. But I think it's not a deffinitive answer. The theory of evolution has been perfected since Darwin first conceived it, so it's certainly possible that it'll continue to do so.
That's the brief answer. Then there's the "why" I don't think it's a deffinitive answer, and that's the part where we don't agree (no need to start it all over again).
DavesUrMan wrote:
As for this whether science is or isn't fact or is or isn't good, I'm just completely losing your train of thought because it seems to change - i understand what you're saying in BOLD up there, I know you didn't say that and no one has said thats what you meant.
It doesn't change. I just use different words to try to express myself better. Chose whichever of my posts you want, that's my answer. We don't agree, but I think it has a lot to do with the way I was educated and the fact that I'm a social scientist. Once again, no need to start the debate all over again.
DavesUrMan wrote:
So I'll ask the question - WHAT DO YOU think of evolutoin, do you accept it as fact or not?
No, I don't accept it as a fact. I accept it as the best theory available.
DavesUrMan wrote:
Also, please point out a single scientific fact that, as you seem to be saying, is not 'fair' or not 'justfied' or is flawed because 'we are humans' or is flawed because of 'poliotics, economy, race' etc - Thats what I mostly want to know - give me an example.
I'm afraid that if I gave you any example, the discussion "scientists as a separate thing from science" would start again, see?
The root of our disagreement is that I don't believe in a "neutral science", because that concept has been refuted since the 1910s by countless authors. But you think science is neutral and there's no possible way it can't be, and that's when the whole scientists - science thing comes in. I get what you say. We just don't agree.
So whatever example I might give, you're going to say that historical, economical, political, social, psicological context doesn't count, because science is tested by the scientists' peers.
And I think (and it's not something I made up, I'm afraid) that it still counts. And that's why certain theories remain and are changed only after centuries have passed. And that's because a moment comes when the context (all those variables I mentioned, plus the technological developement and probably many other variables) "allows" science to refute that previous theory that was considered a fact.
Do you understand why I'm not giving any examples? It's pointless because there's nothing I could say that could change your mind, because you would refute it from your own perspective. And it's fine. We see things from a different perspective, so whatever I say will be refutable from your point of view.
No scientific theory itself is "unfair" or "flawed" because of that. It's just what the context allows to produce. Science can't go one step forward if the context doesn't change. That's why people before Copernicus and Galileo thought the Earth was the centre of the universe. And that's why every new theory has to fight its way to be accepted.
I hope you can understand what I mean. Otherwise, I could recomend you a book that expresses what I think, if you'd like. That'll definitely be clearer than a 22 year old Spanish speaking person trying to talk about science in English.
Anyway, I think we should accept that we see things from different places and let it go. I'm really not interested in continuing this, sorry. I admit it was interesting though. Quite different from what I'm used to at uni.
Tryadictionary, I won't bother replying to you because you obviously didn't even bother reading my post, the one you quoted.
My answer is still the same one that was on my first post.
I'm an atheist, so no bible or genesis for me.
I believe that evolution is the best theory we have so far.
this is exactly what we have been saying, and that is what sience says also, so clearly it is you who is not reading posts. since every time you post someone thinks you are saying something different to what you apparently actually are, and now you are saying what we have been telling you already.
That's the brief answer. Then there's the "why" I don't think it's a deffinitive answer, and that's the part where we don't agree (no need to start it all over again).
this is the important bit so yes you should try to re-explain,since as you say it is the root of the problem.
We don't agree, but I think it has a lot to do with the way I was educated and the fact that I'm a social scientist.
you are right that probably does have something to do with it,what with social 'sciences' being pseudo-science,that most real scientists dont particularly care for,especially when they are reffered to as science.which they are not.
there is something called the scientiffic method, and it is fairly close to impossible for social sciences to adhere to this.
[/quote]
No, I don't accept it as a fact. I accept it as the best theory available.
this is what science claims, nothing more, that has been pointed out many times.
Tryadictionary, I won't bother replying to you because you obviously didn't even bother reading my post, the one you quoted.
[/quote]
Quote:
if i had more time i would address the rest of your post, but as it stands ill have to come back to it in a bit.
happy evolving.
Dave. while you have raised some good points, and I have enjoyed our debates at times, Do you start these threads so that you can berate and belittle anyone who disagrees with you ? If you want to change peoples minds then surely the way to do it is by gently pointing out their arguement may be flawed instead of being so arrogant and aggresive, just a thought.
Dubz
did you actually read how this conversation started and continued?
Have you actually read it ?? Or any of the other conversations between Dave and myself ??
I am the first to admit I was wrong about Dave originally, I completely wrote him off as an Arsehole without actually giving him a "proper trial". However after speaking and debating (even though sometimes I've totally agreed with him, I like to play devil's advocate), with Dave I have found he does have something to say and some very good points. I was only pointing out that it may be a better way to get these points across rather than being so "stubborn".
Telling someone they are wrong, end of story, does not work. If you gently explain to them why you think differently they are more enclinedto listen to your arguement and maybe even possibly change their mind.
However somepeople are just complete and utter fuckwits of the highest order.
