MrStakhanovite wrote:beefcalf wrote:So, when all is said and done, is this really all about the imprecision of the wording of my assertion, as marg has suggested?
Marg is...well....Marg.
The way you worded things is fine, but the issue is the role of evidence in deciding which theory to take over others. Any theory you craft can be mirrored to produce 10+ theories of equal evidentiary value.
You know Stak your example was to show how Beefcalf's comment illustrates he doesn't know what he's talking about. And you have not done that.
Do you really think for every scientific hypothesis accepted...there are a myriad of other competing theories with equal evidentiary value?
I'm going to address your other post above here rather than a separate post.
That is a question I was hoping to hear Beefcalf, now we can bring this thread to its intended conclusion.
First, the point of Hemple and Goodman’s problem is that they are exercises in reflecting how we think about things, and expose errors in our thinking. In the case of a Zeno paradox, Aristotle showed (in my opinion) in his Physics that dividing a number and crossing a distance are not the same things, something important to know (at least for some people).
When it comes to ex-mo atheists, they typically like to contrast their former Mormon beliefs with that of empirical science. When they do that, there is typically sermonizing about how you don’t care about feelings, but you want truth and you want evidence, you want to know why things work, not divine mystery, etc, etc.
And how does this fit in with Beefcalf's comment which you used to illustrate that he's ignorant on what he posts? Shouldn't you be quoting an example of what you have a problem with?
Now flip the situation and instead of the ex-mo atheist probing the apologist over blatant inconsistencies in Mormon beliefs, you have me showing you blatant inconsistencies in how you think empirical science works. Your attitude comes pretty close to that of the apologist, “I can’t figure out the paradox, but science works and that is what matters!” Does it? Don’t you care to know why it works? If how you believe science works is shown to be incomplete, do you just shrug your shoulders and move on? Sounds like a TBM putting polygamy on the shelf.
First of all you haven't shown that Beefcalf's comment shows he doesn't know how science works. What you appear to be showing in my opinion is that you don't understand how science works. Just because you showed some philosophy which may illustrate that science can't arrive at absolute truths, does not mean there is any problem with science and how it works...nor any problem with Beefcalf's understanding of it.
Sometimes I can watch someone talk out their ass, and other times I’m compelled to say something, like I did with Sethbag. Out of the 8 or 9 different strategies for making an Ontological argument (using different logics and ideas), I really understand two, and maybe have a semi decent grasp on two others, leaving another 4 or 5 I don’t know much about, much less enough to honestly call it mental masturbation. Is Seth justified in making that comment? No, not at all, I genuinely enjoy studying ontological arguments, and I can’t even fathom how much I’d have to know before I could honestly say it’s mental masturbation; I doubt Seth even cares there is more than one style of argument. You can say honestly that the arguments don’t impress you, not convinced, or whatever, but mental masturbation? That’s him on a Hitchens-rhetoric high.
You are going off on a tangent. This issue is whether Beefcalf in particular has an appreciation of how the scientific method works. Ontological arguments are irrelevant to this discussion.
You can reject all religions and all belief in God/the divine without recourse to emulating Hitchens, or reading a ton of books, or getting three PhDs, or whatever, you just have to be more modest in how you do it.
Then you should be giving examples of that, of people emulating Hitchens and showing they don't know what they are talking about. In my experience with you when I questioned you are you understanding of Dawkins instead of you replying civilly you responded with a host of attacks ..that I'm a Dawkfag..and more recent a "village atheist". You really have no idea what my understanding is of the scientific process, nor what sort of argument I use against religion. What you do, is set up strawmen to attack, as you have done with Beefcalf.
Ever notice how Tarski or Blixa are hesitant to take a hardline stance on a subject they are not intimately familiar with at that moment?
me on a misunderstanding about mathematical induction until he was confident he actually understood my position, even though his training in that field is so far above my ham handed attempts, I’d have just taken his word for it.
Agreed in that particular discussion he treated you with kid gloves. So you want all atheists to treat others with kid gloves in discussion while it's okay for you to post like a jerk..using strawman fallacious reasoning to attack atheists who attempt to dialogue with you or disagree with you.
I’m trying to think of a study (hook me up here EA) that showed the more confident a person was in their skills were less competent than those who were less confident.
So, there you have it.
And the conclusion is you've not shown that any atheists from this board have a poor understanding of the scientific method.
You on the other hand don't seem to understand it very well.