Shermana wrote:
Sorry, you're wrong. By strictly adhering to the scientific method, ToE was tested and found to be sound.
Found to be sound by who? The majority? Okay, but if I present this thread, it's appeal to populum and authority, right?
No, by the consensus of Biologists. Within Biology, it is an uncontroversial, accepted, foundational theory. It's kind of like how astronomers believe that the earth revolves around the sun. There may be a couple out there who don't, but the consensus do. It's like that.
O.K., now we're getting down to brass tacks.
The Devil sure is in the details, ain't it.
When doesn't the scientific method work, in your view.
First off, the very notion of "The scientific method" is in itself a highly propagated canard. Every scientist has his own method, and not all of them (or most) of them are completely honest. There is more often than not bias and desired-conclusions getting in the way of the actual evidence. And again for the third time, you are comparing APPLIED TECHNOLOGY as in circuitry and wiring, to INFERENTIAL THEORY.
So what you're asserting is that there is no such thing as the scientific method?
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/bridgman.htm
But to the working scientist himself all this appears obvious and trite. What appears to him as the essence of the situation is that he is not consciously following any prescribed course of action, but feels complete freedom to utilize any method or device whatever which in the particular situation before him seems likely to yield the correct answer. In his attack on his specific problem he suffers no inhibitions of precedent or authority, but is completely free to adopt any course that his ingenuity is capable of suggesting to him. No one standing on the outside can predict what the individual scientist will do or what method he will follow. In short, science is what scientists do, and there are as many scientific methods as there are individual scientists.
And I appreciate your honesty, Shermana. Creationism, and ID are both fundamentally anti-science.
That's not true at all. I don't think you understand what "science" actually means. Are they "Anti-fraudulent science"? I'd say so. If anything, they are far more "pro-science" than the mainstream which wants to push their desired conclusions and interpretations of the evidence despite gaping holes.
I'm so confused. In your view, does the scientific method work, or not? You know what it is, right?
What you're calling "desired conclusions and interpretations" is what the scientists themselves call "knowledge." But I'm sure you know better.
That is why your "scientific dissent" is so bogus.
No, this is why your last 3 replies are bogus.
Why is that? Please make an argument.
It's not scientific at all, it's part of an anti-scientific enterprise.
Yeah that definitely works, call people "anti-science" and then attempt to sideline the entire debate with this canard. I appreciate what you're doing here, I really do. You are revealing some utterly desparate maneuevers to drive on the shoulder of the road around traffic here. Problem is, you're driving backwards. Consider yourself pulled over.
If you believe they are pro-science, make an argument to that effect.
This is so interesting. I really want to hear your entire argument against using the scientific method as a way to learn about the natural world.
I really want to hear your argument on why the scientific method is being honestly and accurately used to promote that the ToE is true, WITHOUT getting into appeals to authority or populum.
O.K., that sounds good. Would you like to do it here, or in a separate thread?
It would be odd, wouldn't it, if all of modern Biology was confused about what science is and how to do it? It would be surprising, don't you think?
Of course it doesn't always produce truthful results--that's part of the method.
Ok, there goes your syllogism, out the window, into the wood chipper.
But it produces the best results we can possibly get. Without it, you don't have any premises at all.
However, it does a better job at that than any other method we have devised, do you agree?
What other methods are there exactly? Do you even understand what the Scientific method is? If you did, you'd understand why it's bogus when people push the ToE as a sealed deal, and makes a total mockery of the scientific establishment.
Other methods, such as religious revelation, Ouija boards, intuition, etc. IMO, when trying to learn about the natural world, the scientific method is the best method we have. Do you agree or disagree?
Is your position that the scientific method doesn't work, or that Biologists, for some reason, aren't following it?
Do you have an alternative scientific theory for the diversity of species on earth?
Now it's completely uncontroversial, and we point to a Wikipedia Article to show it as a done deal. Once again, I truly appreciate what you're doing here. I'd suggest you take a break and stop trying to completely sideline the process. Do not pass go. You ain't collecting $200. Follow the debate. Follow the facts. Follow the discussion.
wiki, a perfectly good basic source, and two other scientific sources for you. Would you like more? I can give you 50, if you like. Just let me know. As I say, it's utterly uncontroversial. If it weren't, it wouldn't be in wiki.
As you can see, humans are homo sapiens, a species of the genus homo, which is in the family Hominidae, great apes
.
Well ain't that nice. And?
So we're apes. We're members of the ape family, Hominidae. Hominidae = apes. We are hominidae, therefore we are apes.
Generally, humans are considered the only surviving representatives of the genus Homo. Some scientists, however, consider other members of the hominid family (chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas) to be so close to humans genetically that they should be classified as Homo.
Hmm, nothing about us being a "species of ape". And I'm assuming you weren't keeping up with the debate on what exactly "species" means either.
Well that's nice, but guess what, it's called "SPECULATION". And it's basically an appeal to authority and populum which apparently there is plenty of dissent against. Do you seriously think you're gonna end the argument with this? If so, thank you! You're like practically throwing ammo crates to me.
This is extremely basic scientific knowledge, that you would get in a Biology 101 course, if you took one. There is no dissent about this within science. I understand that you don't accept science, which is what I'm guessing you mean by "controversial." The only controversy is whether to accept science or not.
Tell you what, you provide a single scientific source that says that humans are not members of the ape family.
Here's a page with a nice diagram that shows our precise relationship to other apes and primates:
http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/pdf_a ... XONOMY.pdf That one is from Emory University.
