Your opinion is noted.

[William]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #364]

Nice analogy. I’m sure we could all come up with similar ones to support our own world view.

The message “turn to God, or there will be trouble” has been re-stated countless times and in countless ways since Christianity began. Deuteronomy 28 might still hold sway over some people, but most now see it for what it is: baseless fearmongering.

Your opinion is noted.

Regarding the phrase;

"Your opinion is noted."

Q: For those who say this within the context of debating, what is meant by that?

It does not in itself present any argument, and is more just a one-liner as far as I can tell.

Q: For those who's opinion is 'noted', what do you make of this type of reply? Is it helpful to the debate or considered to be an Acquiesce?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #37]

Did you answer my question? I think that there is a mind behind creation.

Q: What about that, requires faith?

Believing something without good reason.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #38]

Who are these critics who also express concern that popular attention paid to Sheldrake's books and public appearances "undermines the public's understanding of science?"

Sheldrake appears to explain how science evolved and changed in relation to the cultures the science was being conducted within, and that interpretation of the science varied, depending on which culture was involved...which is why the problem of consciousness cannot be answered where materialism [emergent theory etc] is the cultural filter through which the science is interpreted.

Whereas, scientists interpreting the science through cultures which understood consciousness and the things of the mind, from less materialistic world views, see no such problem.

[The video goes into that in more detail.]

Critics are important of course, but it is hard to assess uncited critique.


.

There's a problem to begin with.

There's an old saying: 'There are many religions; there is only one science'. It is hard to assess uncited critique, as you say, but easy to dismiss concensus opinion if it goes against your Beliefs.

I can already see a problem with talking about interpreting science through cultures. While that's a fair observation, just as - for instance - that many of the old scientists were Christians - it is too close for comfort to the Theist dismissal of science as 'always changing its' mind' and 'only human opinion'. In fact there mere citing of the point suggest that you have it in hand ready to use to dismiss any scientific opinion that conflicts with your preferred beliefs, supported by citing some Authority, like Dr. Sheldrake here. I have seen it many times before. Just as much as someone with a degree in fish farming talking about Cosmic physics and citing human religious superstitions and 'seeing no problem' when they dismiss them all with some Faith in the Tao, or Brahmah or Karma or one of the many Cultural names given to this compelling feeling that Something is in charge of it all and for which there is no shred of decent evidence.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #41]

Did you answer my question? I think that there is a mind behind creation.

Q: What about that, requires faith?

Believing something without good reason.

Why would you think I would have no good reason to think that there is a mind behind creation?

Search Faith;
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Search belief:
an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).


I find it interesting how different words have the same meanings.

I lack faith in the idea that there is a mind behind creation, because I don't see how - even if it were the case - that it would require anyone need to place complete trust or confidence in that, even if one were to accept that it is true.

There's an old saying: 'There are many religions; there is only one science'.

Can't say I ever heard that one.

Search "Science";
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Yep. There is only one science. That stands to reason, since there is only one physical and natural world through which observation and experiment can be done.

Search "Religions";

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Yep. Gods being plural, it stands to reason there are many religions.

Search "Old Saying;"
A saying is a sentence that people often say and that gives advice or information about human life and experience.

Thanks for the information. I will put it with the information that fire is hot and winter is cold.

It is hard to assess uncited critique, as you say, but easy to dismiss concensus opinion if it goes against your Beliefs.

My beliefs? What beliefs are those?
I suppose if you could agree with me that the emergence theory hypothesis is something folk believe in, and the hypothesis that we exist within a creation is also something folk can believe in, we can agree that it is easy to dismiss concensus opinion if it goes against those Beliefs.

Search "consensus opinion";

a general opinion shared by all the people in a group

Search "Logical fallacies"

Logical fallacies are flawed, deceptive, or false arguments that can be proven wrong with reasoning. There are two main types of fallacies: A formal fallacy is an argument with a premise and conclusion that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. An informal fallacy is an error in the form, content, or context of the argument.

Bandwagon Fallacy
The bandwagon fallacy assumes something is true (or right or good) because others agree with it. In other words, the fallacy argues that if everyone thinks a certain way, then you should, too.

I can already see a problem with talking about interpreting science through cultures. While that's a fair observation, just as - for instance - that many of the old scientists were Christians - it is too close for comfort to the Theist dismissal of science as 'always changing its' mind' and 'only human opinion'. In fact there mere citing of the point suggest that you have it in hand ready to use to dismiss any scientific opinion that conflicts with your preferred beliefs, supported by citing some Authority, like Dr. Sheldrake here.

Agreed - I see that is what my linking the video might suggest to you. But I simply did so in case you were interested in listening to the points brought up therein and engaging with me re whichever of those points you want to argue against.

You chose to go with the Bandwagon Fallacy instead.

I see you explain why you did as because the interpretation of science through the cultural lens makes you uncomfortable in that such interpretation might be dismissive of science.
I can't connect the points you make here. Are you saying that Culture can be used to dismiss science, if it is used to interpret science?

[William]

Sorry - wrong thread - deleted post

[Miles]

Sorry - wrong thread - deleted post

Just as an FYI, there's a delete function in the lower right corner that will delete one's entire submission. It's an X in box accompanied by "Delete post" when scrolled over.


.

[William]

Sorry - wrong thread - deleted post

Just as an FYI, there's a delete function in the lower right corner that will delete one's entire submission. It's an X in box accompanied by "Delete post" when scrolled over.


.

I don't see that on my screen.

[Miles]

Sorry - wrong thread - deleted post

Just as an FYI, there's a delete function in the lower right corner that will delete one's entire submission. It's an X in box accompanied by "Delete post" when scrolled over.


.

I don't see that on my screen.

Ouch! An issue otseng might have to look into.


.

[brunumb]

Ouch! An issue otseng might have to look into.

I'm guessing you only see that cross at the bottom of your own posts.

Edit: I see it at the bottom of this post by me, but not others.

[AgnosticBoy]

"Your opinion is noted."

Q: For those who say this within the context of debating, what is meant by that?

It usually serves the function of dismissing a view. It may even be a way to devalue a claim as I'll explain below.

I've encountered debaters that treat a dismissed view as if its false. I remember a debate topic on another forum regarding voter fraud. One person claimed that there was voter fraud without offering any evidence. So people concluded that the claimant was lying (which also means the claim was false). I disagreed because not having evidence doesn't automatically mean false. At best, it just makes the claim an opinion or belief. I would've thought that people should first prove that something is false or a lie before concluding that it is false.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #41]

Did you answer my question? I think that there is a mind behind creation.

Q: What about that, requires faith?

Believing something without good reason.

Why would you think I would have no good reason to think that there is a mind behind creation?

Search Faith;
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Search belief:
an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).


I find it interesting how different words have the same meanings.

I lack faith in the idea that there is a mind behind creation, because I don't see how - even if it were the case - that it would require anyone need to place complete trust or confidence in that, even if one were to accept that it is true.

There's an old saying: 'There are many religions; there is only one science'.

Can't say I ever heard that one.

Search "Science";
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Yep. There is only one science. That stands to reason, since there is only one physical and natural world through which observation and experiment can be done.

Search "Religions";

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Yep. Gods being plural, it stands to reason there are many religions.

Search "Old Saying;"
A saying is a sentence that people often say and that gives advice or information about human life and experience.

Thanks for the information. I will put it with the information that fire is hot and winter is cold.

It is hard to assess uncited critique, as you say, but easy to dismiss concensus opinion if it goes against your Beliefs.

My beliefs? What beliefs are those?
I suppose if you could agree with me that the emergence theory hypothesis is something folk believe in, and the hypothesis that we exist within a creation is also something folk can believe in, we can agree that it is easy to dismiss concensus opinion if it goes against those Beliefs.

Search "consensus opinion";

a general opinion shared by all the people in a group

Search "Logical fallacies"

Logical fallacies are flawed, deceptive, or false arguments that can be proven wrong with reasoning. There are two main types of fallacies: A formal fallacy is an argument with a premise and conclusion that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. An informal fallacy is an error in the form, content, or context of the argument.

Bandwagon Fallacy
The bandwagon fallacy assumes something is true (or right or good) because others agree with it. In other words, the fallacy argues that if everyone thinks a certain way, then you should, too.

I can already see a problem with talking about interpreting science through cultures. While that's a fair observation, just as - for instance - that many of the old scientists were Christians - it is too close for comfort to the Theist dismissal of science as 'always changing its' mind' and 'only human opinion'. In fact there mere citing of the point suggest that you have it in hand ready to use to dismiss any scientific opinion that conflicts with your preferred beliefs, supported by citing some Authority, like Dr. Sheldrake here.

Agreed - I see that is what my linking the video might suggest to you. But I simply did so in case you were interested in listening to the points brought up therein and engaging with me re whichever of those points you want to argue against.

You chose to go with the Bandwagon Fallacy instead.

I see you explain why you did as because the interpretation of science through the cultural lens makes you uncomfortable in that such interpretation might be dismissive of science.
I can't connect the points you make here. Are you saying that Culture can be used to dismiss science, if it is used to interpret science?

I have been shown no convincing evidence to think there is a mind behind creation. You may think you have good reason to think that there is a mind behind creation. I have seen most of the apologetics and they are either fallactious or try to interpret the unknown and unexplained as evidence for a god (or Cosmic Mind) which is also a fallacy.

Belief. /Faith convinces of something because of evidence/Convinced of something without evidence, or in spite of it. I find it interesting that the same word can have two different meanings. This is the basis if the equivication fallacy.
Trans

There's an old saying: 'There are many religions; there is only one science'.

Can't say I ever heard that one.

I'm kidding . It's an 'old saying' that I coined myself. But it is true.

"Thanks for the information. I will put it with the information that fire is hot and winter is cold." Only because you fail to see the implications. I will store this against the time I should ever see you argue that science is not to be trusted because it is mere human opinion.

Well, I'm going to have to use it already mer,. 'Sure there are many gods. There are many religions'. You are missing that science is a method that is so reliably the best way of interpreting data correctly that it is used globally whereas religion all have their own cultural preference. Religion is a regional opinion that is not supported by evidence. Science is a global fact finding method, validated by its' results.

This is not a bandwagon fallacy. Taking science as valid because it produces such reliable results that the world uses and relies on it believing because of evidence, not the bandwagon fallacy of believing something without good evidence, just because other people say so.