| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a fan of Mr. Ham or the push for Creationism/Intelligent Design/whatever-they-call-it-next in science classrooms, but calling him "wackadoo" from post #1 doesn't seem likely to encourage productive discourse.
Perhaps it would be better to focus on exposing and refuting the ignorance and misstatements--the lack of actual science--in the pro-ID positions and arguments instead of personal attacks on the individuals supporting it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
{sets the slaad on fire} Whatevs, toad-face! Bring on the marshmallows!
I'm not a fan of Mr. Ham or the push for Creationism/Intelligent Design/whatever-they-call-it-next in science classrooms, but calling him "wackadoo" from post #1 doesn't seem likely to encourage productive discourse.
Because sometimes you can't actually have a productive discourse.
As is the case with Ken Ham.Who is
My favorite part is an exchange that goes thusly. Ken Ham says that the bible says that all animals were vegetarians until after the flood when god said it was OK to eat meat. Alright, doesn't pass the sniff test, but Bill Nye, ever the f%$$ing gentleman, engages him.
"What about lions?" he asks. Lions are built with big gnashing pointy teeth, incisors, to rip flesh and can't adequately digest vegetable matter as herbivores can.
Hammyhamham's reply goes something like this:
lions are much like bears with big gnashy teeth.
To which I'm thinking...nope wrong out of the gates. Bears have molars and incisors and they're omnivores...
Then he's like...take panda bears for example, and they're vegetarians.
Like, not only is the first step in his logical whirligig a doozy, a non-starter, he then uses as an example the least bear-like bear that ever beared. Like, honestly, scientists don't know whether to classify it as a bear or not (likely not).
His entire argument rests on the idea that we can't observe things from the past, to which I say "gotcha dickwit, because light takes time to travel and we can ONLY observe things in the past."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*comes in, hoping title is referring to a game show or other fun discussion*
*sees it's another religious rant*
*exit stage left*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"the least bear-like bear that ever beared" =)
The most telling part of the Nye-Ham debate was when both were asked "What would change your mind about this issue?"
Bill Nye, speaking for science: "Verified empirical evidence."
Ken Ham, speaking for religious fanaticism: "NOTHING."
This.
Kinda makes the exercise pointless.Hopefully the people in the room were more willing to be swayed by evidence than Ham.
The most telling part of the Nye-Ham debate was when both were asked "What would change your mind about this issue?"
Bill Nye, speaking for science: "Verified empirical evidence."
Ken Ham, speaking for religious fanaticism: "NOTHING."This.
Kinda makes the exercise pointless.Hopefully the people in the room were more willing to be swayed by evidence than Ham.
My understanding is that the people in the room -- it was held in the Creationist Museum, IIRC -- were largely Ham's shills and fellow travellers. (Frankly, I thought the debate was a bad idea for this reason, among others.) I doubt anyone's mind was altered in the slightest.
On the other hand, it's good to get it on record how closed-minded and fanatical creationists (and specifically AIG) are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pat Robertson implores creationist Ken Ham to shut up: ‘Let’s not make a joke of ourselves’
Title kinda says it all, huh?
Pat Robertson implores creationist Ken Ham to shut up: ‘Let’s not make a joke of ourselves’
Title kinda says it all, huh?
Too late, Pat -- you've been a joke for a while.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a bit of a recent conversion. For the last four months or so, Pat Robertson has been speaking out against YEC. I'm not sure what prompted it, but I am definitely curious.Pat Robertson implores creationist Ken Ham to shut up: ‘Let’s not make a joke of ourselves’
Title kinda says it all, huh?
Had not heard this. Certainly an interesting development.
I'm not a fan of Mr. Ham or the push for Creationism/Intelligent Design/whatever-they-call-it-next in science classrooms, but calling him "wackadoo" from post #1 doesn't seem likely to encourage productive discourse.
Right. There is nothing to be gained from elevating Ham's position to whackadoo. The whackadoo community and their lizard overlords would like to apply an injunction against being associated with Ham.
Perhaps it would be better to focus on exposing and refuting the ignorance and misstatements--the lack of actual science--in the pro-ID positions and arguments instead of personal attacks on the individuals supporting it?
Why? The ID side is doing all that for us.
Hopefully the people in the room were more willing to be swayed by evidence than Ham.
I'm willing to be swayed by Ham. Just put it into a nice sandwich (unfortunately I'll have to insist on gluten-free bread.) Bacon would be even better.
The problem with the debate (not just this one, but the concept itself) is one side wants to rely on the truth, unvarnished and dull, while the other is willing to weave a story of how something could be plausible if we just believe hard enough.
The story sounds compelling, while the truth sounds boring.
It happens over and over. I predict it will happen again in the future.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't see the debate, but I was amused by this evolutionist's summary of the debate.
"In one all-too-typical two-minute span, Nye started out by explaining how evolutionary biologists make predictions. He then veered into the sexual habits of minnows, suddenly jumped to the number of bacteria in the human gut, discussed the amount of energy required for roses to produce fruit, told the story about how his first cousin (once removed) died from the flu, and then bounced back to the horny minnows, with reference to certain fish diseases. All of this talk about sex and germs will make sense if you’re familiar with the Red Queen hypothesis. If you’re not, good luck. Five topics in two minutes, with extensive prior knowledge assumed: science communication in action!"
I can hardly imagine a more blatantly unfair take on the event from someone purportedly on the side of science. That writer is a hack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't see the debate, but I was amused by this evolutionist's summary of the debate.
"In one all-too-typical two-minute span, Nye started out by explaining how evolutionary biologists make predictions. He then veered into the sexual habits of minnows, suddenly jumped to the number of bacteria in the human gut, discussed the amount of energy required for roses to produce fruit, told the story about how his first cousin (once removed) died from the flu, and then bounced back to the horny minnows, with reference to certain fish diseases. All of this talk about sex and germs will make sense if you’re familiar with the Red Queen hypothesis. If you’re not, good luck. Five topics in two minutes, with extensive prior knowledge assumed: science communication in action!"
This is literally the only example I know of where the writer concluded that Nye didn't absolutely wipe the floor with Ham. The overwhelming consensus, including in news media, is that Ham came across as an incredibly ignorant, obtuse nutcase while Nye was straightforward and engaged in educating people.
Are you starting to see where my distaste for philosophy comes from?
Anyone that has an actual point uses science. Anyone that needs to deny someone having enough data claims there's not enough proof using philosophy.
Are you starting to see where my distaste for philosophy comes from?
Anyone that has an actual point uses science. Anyone that needs to deny someone having enough data claims there's not enough proof using philosophy.
Science does have an underlying philosophy, so it's tough to extricate the former from the latter.
I think there's always going to be a problem with a debate between science and faith of any kind. You cannot quantify faith.
That having been said, looking at empirical evidence and burying your head in the sand isn't the same thing as faith.
Faith suggests taking things for true or right even though there is a lack of empirical evidence. That's not what Ham was doing.
|
Science does have an underlying philosophy, so it's tough to extricate the former from the latter.Are you starting to see where my distaste for philosophy comes from?
Anyone that has an actual point uses science. Anyone that needs to deny someone having enough data claims there's not enough proof using philosophy.
Except that metaphysics (the underlying philosophy of science) is only one subset of philosophy, and it's not all that popular, say, in Europe today. Many fields of philosophy have long ago left any sort of resemblance to what a scientist would call "rational discussion" behind.
I'd guess the complaint is more directed at the "brain in a jar" style philosophy.
Oh man not this nonsense again.
Science does have an underlying philosophy, so it's tough to extricate the former from the latter.Are you starting to see where my distaste for philosophy comes from?
Anyone that has an actual point uses science. Anyone that needs to deny someone having enough data claims there's not enough proof using philosophy.
Science's underlining "philosophy" is "lets settle this with an experiment because philosophizing gets us nowhere"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it's called empiricism, which is a school of philosophy...
But seriously, don't derail this thread por favor, we've already had about a dozen threads devoted to your irrational pet hate.
But seriously, don't derail this thread por favor, we've already had about a dozen threads devoted to your irrational pet hate.
Three tops. They just feel like dozens...
Three quarters of Ham's rant is a post modernist attack on the validity of science. It was interspersed with preaching, prepositional apologetics, and and a dash of "what the hell" but the core message is that you can't trust science because it is merely another philosophy. You can't discuss why Ham is kookier than a bowl of coco-puffs without addressing that point.
Yeah, it's called empiricism, which is a school of philosophy...
Which is inherently not self contained/circular because of its insistence on outside knowledge. Which, without being circular, CAN prove itself by actually working to further human knowledge. Since empiricism uses "your mind + the universe" calling it circular/enclosed/etc would enable someone to call ANYTHING circular by arbitrarily adding it to the system.
Not recognizing how vast of a difference that makes between science and other modes of thought is exactly what makes Ken Ham a whackadoo.
So welcome to the darkside. We have cookies.
He was lame...but sadly not lame'. That would have rocked.
I'm not a fan of Mr. Ham or the push for Creationism/Intelligent Design/whatever-they-call-it-next in science classrooms, but calling him "wackadoo" from post #1 doesn't seem likely to encourage productive discourse.Because sometimes you can't actually have a productive discourse.
As is the case with Ken Ham.
Who isMy favorite part is an exchange that goes thusly. Ken Ham says that the bible says that all animals were vegetarians until after the flood when god said it was OK to eat meat. Alright, doesn't pass the sniff test, but Bill Nye, ever the f#!@ing gentleman, engages him.
"What about lions?" he asks. Lions are built with big gnashing pointy teeth, incisors, to rip flesh and can't adequately digest vegetable matter as herbivores can.
Hammyhamham's reply goes something like this:
lions are much like bears with big gnashy teeth.To which I'm thinking...nope wrong out of the gates. Bears have molars and incisors and they're omnivores...
Then he's like...take panda bears for example, and they're vegetarians.
Like, not only is the first step in his logical whirligig a doozy, a non-starter, he then uses as an example the least bear-like bear that ever beared. Like, honestly, scientists don't know whether to classify it as a bear or not (likely not).His entire argument rests on the idea that we can't observe things from the past, to which I say "gotcha dickwit, because light takes time to travel and we can ONLY observe things in the past."
True story: My room mate and I watched the debate, even though we knew...it was going to be rough.
As background, both of us are mammalian paleontologists wrapping up our PhDs. And a good chunk of our research is tooth focused.
At the comment about "Lions having similar teeth to bears, I completely lost it and started laughing uncontrollably. My room mate had the completely opposite reaction: He got so angry he grabbed an empty pizza box, stormed out the front door (which by the way, we live in Wyoming, and he didn't bother putting on a coat), and immediately starting wailing on the pizza box in a rage.
P.S. Pandas are definitely bears now.
This is literally the only example I know of where the writer concluded that Nye didn't absolutely wipe the floor with Ham. The overwhelming consensus, including in news media, is that Ham came across as an incredibly ignorant, obtuse nutcase while Nye was straightforward and engaged in educating people.I didn't see the debate, but I was amused by this evolutionist's summary of the debate.
"In one all-too-typical two-minute span, Nye started out by explaining how evolutionary biologists make predictions. He then veered into the sexual habits of minnows, suddenly jumped to the number of bacteria in the human gut, discussed the amount of energy required for roses to produce fruit, told the story about how his first cousin (once removed) died from the flu, and then bounced back to the horny minnows, with reference to certain fish diseases. All of this talk about sex and germs will make sense if you’re familiar with the Red Queen hypothesis. If you’re not, good luck. Five topics in two minutes, with extensive prior knowledge assumed: science communication in action!"
Actually, a lot of the responses I read about the debate was that Bill Nye "lost" just by showing up. The debate in the long run did nothing, except perhaps give continued legitimacy to those who still think the idea of an earth older than 6,000 years is controversial. Certainly the type of people who still consider Creationism valid are not going to be swayed by a 2.5 ish hour debate.
|
|
Science's underlining "philosophy" is "lets settle this with an experiment because philosophizing gets us nowhere"
This is an abhorrent simplification, akin to saying that, for example, D&D is a game where people replay the events of "Lord of the Rings".
I'd think you'd be shocked as to how much depth and serious, real issues that need resolving accompany modern science. Philosophy does give science a sense of direction and sets it's goals - without a way to decide what's important, science would not have moved anywhere. And trust me, "what has the most immediate practical applications" is very much NOT the leading paradigm in most areas of research.
Just don't get confused by people using the same word to describe very different things. The kind of philosophy you are thinking of is significantly, inherently different from metaphysics and natural philosophy. You are thinking of what is known as "continental philosophy", thus named because it is most popular in Europe. However, those fields in philosophy that concern science are still vibrant, and managed to escape the stagnation some of their sister fields.
I'd think you'd be shocked as to how much depth and serious, real issues that need resolving accompany modern science.
Such as? I know you know I know that science isn't complete, so I think the issues you're talking about here involve more than more stuff to find out.
Philosophy does give science a sense of direction and sets it's goals - without a way to decide what's important, science would not have moved anywhere.
I thought that was what cash was for...
And trust me, "what has the most immediate practical applications" is very much NOT the leading paradigm in most areas of research.
What answers the big questions would seem to be the ones most in need of research.
Just don't get confused by people using the same word to describe very different things. The kind of philosophy you are thinking of is significantly, inherently different from metaphysics and natural philosophy.
The other answers are somewhat on topic, this would be a complete derail into one of the other threads, but basically I have been asking the real spartacus to stand up for quite some time.
Science does have an underlying philosophy, so it's tough to extricate the former from the latter.Are you starting to see where my distaste for philosophy comes from?
Anyone that has an actual point uses science. Anyone that needs to deny someone having enough data claims there's not enough proof using philosophy.
So what then makes Ken Ham nuttier than squirrel poo?
|
|
No, cash does not decided what's the next important scientific question. Currently, as far as I know, mainstream physics is mostly concerned with trying to figure out why there is one model for describing very big things (that will be Einstein's Theory of General Relativity) and one for describing very small things (that will be Quantum Mechanics). Because, according to current metaphysics, a single, unified theory to describe "everything" is where we should try to be.
But it's not just an arbitrary choice - immense debates between spectacular minds led to thinking in that way, and of course the debate is not even really over yet (it will probably never be).
The metaphysics (quite literally the level of thinking about science from above and trying to figure what it's about, where is it going, and how is it going to get there) of every era dictated how the scientists of that era thought and functioned. Ignoring their importance is not unlike ignoring the need of a manager in a place of business. The Wikipedia article on metaphysics if chock full of details, but I encourage you to read the specific sections about "metaphysics in science" (found near the bottom of the page), the problem of induction and demarcation - both of the latter two as examples to the possible merits of the rationalistic point of view , which claims that if SOME of the concepts we use relay entirely on human logic, the rest must too.
As a last taste, I would suggest reading as much of the article on the scientific method as you have the patience to allow. And as you are reading it, keep in mind that every single little details there was discussed, debated and inspected by generations of (gasp) philosophers, and is still being examined today - self criticism is, after all, an important part of the scientific method.
the problem of induction and demarcation -
The rest is off topic but Ham used the problem of induction as a major point so...
Observation:Stuff worked the same yesterday as today. Conclusion, The rules of physics worked the same yesterday as they did today.
Observation: The most distant stars we can see have a spectroscopy pattern similar to other stars stars that are close by: Conclussion: the laws of physics worked the same 13 billion years ago.
Conclussion: the laws of physics are either fixed or changing reaaaaly slowly. That means stuff we analyze in the present can give us an accurate representation of things in the past.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm willing to be swayed by Ham. Just put it into a nice sandwich (unfortunately I'll have to insist on gluten-free bread.) Bacon would be even better.
Hopefully the people in the room were more willing to be swayed by evidence than Ham.
Don't get me wrong, I really like my bacon, but for sandwiches, ham is better. Not because of taste, but because ham behaves itself in a more consistent way. Sometimes a whole strip of bacon wants to pull out of the sandwich. Ham does not do this so much.
Gonna make me some hamburgers.
|
|
the problem of induction and demarcation -The rest is off topic but Ham used the problem of induction as a major point so...
Observation:Stuff worked the same yesterday as today. Conclusion, The rules of physics worked the same yesterday as they did today.
Observation: The most distant stars we can see have a spectroscopy pattern similar to other stars stars that are close by: Conclussion: the laws of physics worked the same 13 billion years ago.
Conclussion: the laws of physics are either fixed or changing reaaaaly slowly. That means stuff we analyze in the present can give us an accurate representation of things in the past.
I am really, honestly and truly grateful at the fortune I had at being born after numerous generations of people who think more carefully than you do.
You are talking as if every major thing to discover in the universe is already known about. No way to disprove that, of course, but it is the duty of scientists to continually challenge that assessment. Shrugging off extremely complicated questions (like induction - a concept that I have, personally, proved in a rigorous mathematical way is not always true) as "already solved" when they are really not is an excellent way to never, ever discover anything new.