Chromosome challenge from Creationuts
- Thread starter mountainhare
- Start date
The point of the thread seems to be this:
That the 'discovery' mentioned is some kind of wonderful miraculous confirmation that evolution is 'science', able to make predictions and test them. Secondarily, you imagine the evidence to be strongly in favour of man and chimp having a shared ancestor.
I see the evidence presented as strongly supporting neither thesis.
(1) The process of hypothesis-forming, prediction, and verification was wholly unpoliced.
(2) The value of the evidence is tainted, not by its unambiguity or cleanness of fit to evolutionary theory, but due to hidden philosophical assumptions completely unstated in the whole proposal of evolution.
That the 'discovery' mentioned is some kind of wonderful miraculous confirmation that evolution is 'science', able to make predictions and test them. Secondarily, you imagine the evidence to be strongly in favour of man and chimp having a shared ancestor.
I see the evidence presented as strongly supporting neither thesis.
(1) The process of hypothesis-forming, prediction, and verification was wholly unpoliced.
(2) The value of the evidence is tainted, not by its unambiguity or cleanness of fit to evolutionary theory, but due to hidden philosophical assumptions completely unstated in the whole proposal of evolution.
Einstuck:
Ironically, you are demonstrating your ignorance of 'appeal to authority'. Because even if I was appealing to an authority, i is not an 'appeal to authority' logic fallacy, if the authority you are appealing to is educated in the area you are discussing.
Instead, why don't you quote sections which you feel are relevant to this discussion from the pieces of literature you told me to go and peruse, and then explain how they support your argument. That's how NORMAL people engage in discussion. Or is that too hard?
He who asserts must prove.
Great! Off you go then...
Red herring. I'm not even going to go into how you are distorting what I said, because what claims I have made are basically irrelevant when it comes to to the fact that you must support YOUR claims. You asserted, now you must prove.
Those aren't my lecture notes. I used multiple, reliable sources, including wikipedia, in an attempt to educate you about 'the burden of proof' fallacy. All of my sources clearly pointed out that 'He who asserts must prove'. If you find fault with any of my sources, merely point out why you feel that they are mistaken, providing your own independent sources to support your conjecture. Because if you don't provide sources, then that's all your assertions are... conjecture.
Wrong again. I wasn't appealing to any authority, I was pointing out that in formal debates in today's civilized society, the burden of proof rests with the claimant. All philosophers recognize that this is the cause. If you disagree, then I urge you to make a case demonstrating otherwise.
Ironically, you are demonstrating your ignorance of 'appeal to authority'. Because even if I was appealing to an authority, i is not an 'appeal to authority' logic fallacy, if the authority you are appealing to is educated in the area you are discussing.
Translation: "I'm going to ignore your sources, because they reveal that I'm acting like an ignorant ass".
Then why did you demand Ophiolite do so previously? Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you are crapping out of supporting your gross generalization.
Shifting the Burden of Proof fallacy. If you make an assertion, YOU have to support it. You can't demand that your opponent do your research, or prove your argument. I could quite easily shoot back a dozen books which explain the peer review process, and why it is so successful.
Instead, why don't you quote sections which you feel are relevant to this discussion from the pieces of literature you told me to go and peruse, and then explain how they support your argument. That's how NORMAL people engage in discussion. Or is that too hard?
He who asserts must prove.
What nonsense. Your sources are meaningless, since I don't count votes, I engage in science. Don't bother trying to 'educate' me. I'm not here to be wowed by 'authority' by someone who thinks they're a 'teacher'. Treat me as an equal or F*** off.
wikipedia - corny 'pop-science' for kids under 20 who have to research high-school projects. I've written and corrected articles for them. the 'peer review' is almost non-existant in many fields there.
This is totally idiotic. But since you have repeated it endlessly, and seem too stupid to understand what you are trying to assert, lets analyze it in detail.
First lets talk about debating, even though it seems that actual debating societies at Yale haven't followed civilized or scientific rules for decades, judging from the articulate expressions of graduates like George Bush.
Case 1: Either side in the debate has an equally plausible position, because the common evidence is ambiguous, complex, unknown, or requires heavy interpretation. In this case, there is no special "he who asserts". Each side must present or share common evidence, and make logical arguments about it, or interpret it in a framework of assumptions about the world. Each side has an equal duty and obligation to 'present evidence' or else make use of the evidence presented by their opponent in a different way. But there is no 'a priori' way to distinguish sides, or make demands upon either side to 'prove' their position.
Listeners will be convinced (or not) based upon either the clarity of the evidence or the exclusivity of its interpretation, or the plausibility of the assumptions that must be accepted to make a logical choice. Neither party is obligated to 'prove a case', unless the other side has already begun to convince neutral reviewers to swing in their direction.
Case 2: One side will be on the surface, or in the light of known facts more much more plausible than the other. Here, the side with the improbable position, (if it wants to win a debate) must or ought to make a strong active effort to falsify or re-interpret the opposing evidence, and provide new evidence, alternate interpretations, or new logical structures or plausible assumptions that when accepted remove the tilt in favour of the opponent or make a strong and convincing counter-argument.
The side with the more plausible position can certainly relax, and merely present the obvious agreed upon facts, the simplest or most plausible interpretation etc. without having to make any special efforts or demonstrations of 'proof'. Listeners will naturally take the more plausible side unless and until they are shown that new evidence or interpretation requires a re-assessment of the relative plausibility of the two sides.
Thus the statement, "He who asserts, must prove", for all of its cuteness and appeal, is a worthless and meaningless simplification.
In Case 1, it is meaningless, because neither side can be distinguished from the other. So both or neither must especially 'prove' what they assert. Shouting this at your opponent is just a debating trick and a red herring.
In Case 2, it must be shown or be obvious that one side is far more unlikely or implausible than the other. That is, we have to be sure we even have a 'Case 2' , and we have to know which side is which, before any such principle can be applied. Then and only then can we say to the side with the weaker or more implausible case, "Prove it! Or we will hold onto the more plausible view."
From these considerations is it abundantly clear that no amount of 'quotations' or 'authorities' is at all relevant in this case. It is a case of simple logic, and requires no affirmation or sources. And the best and most accurate expression of what is obvious here is the one I gave previously:
your cleverness remains too stupid by half.
Again, more garbage. A statement is not a 'conjecture' because it lacks 'sources'. And no amount of 'sources' can change a real conjecture into fact.
A conjecture is an unsupported proposition, not unsupported by sources (a high-school misunderstanding of the idea of support) but unsupported by verifiable facts or clear unambiguous logic.
If my logic is clear and accurate, I don't need any stinkin' 'sources'.
Another incredible logical fallacy of yours.
It doesn't matter how 'educated' your authority is, it is an appeal to authority if you appeal to authority instead of facts or logic. It is a logical fallacy if you think that an appeal to authority is a substitute for a logical analysis.
A perfect example of this is exactly the case above. You appealed to authority. The authority was an acknowledged 'expert', but it was still an appeal to authority, not an appeal to fact (except perhaps historical fact), or an appeal to logic. Finally it was a logical fallacy to appeal to authority in this case, because simple logic shows the authority(s) was completely wrong, misleading, or oversimplified. Only logic could supply the correct answer, and the experts turned out to be idiots (as usual).
Again, you mention another fallacy, without understanding the scope of its application, and hence you mis-apply it like the others. It is not a 'shift in the burden' if I insist you use logic instead of 'sources' where appropriate. And there is nothing wrong with shifting the burden of proof if your opponent's position is more implausible than your own. We proved that logically above (not with sources).
If you are referring to the idea that 'scientists' are more ethical than other professionals, the burden of proof should naturally be upon the person who thinks this, since it is implausible when there is no mechanism to account for or explain why scientists selected from the same population as other professionals should differ, and specifically differ in ethical standards.
Here the burden of proof has not shifted at all, but remains on the clown who claims that scientists are MORE ethical than other groups. And that is NOT me, but my opponent.
If you are referring to the idea that 'vigorous peer review' guarantees scientific accuracy and integrity, that also clearly flies in the face of the available evidence, so, the burden of proof is again with the person who makes the claim that peer review is 'vigorous' or 'rigorous' enough to ensure both accuracy and integrity.
In a world known to be full of ideological extremists, cheaters, thieves, frauds, cloud-gazers, and wishful thinkers, where 180 different wars are being fought globally at any one time, and thousands of criminals operate in sophisticated gangs, and where governments are full of corruption and coverups, and where 'science' has immediate economic, practical, and military value, it is ludicrous to pretend that 'science' is conducted in some kind of sterile ethical fairyland untouched by fraud, greed, ego, and corruption.
This puts the burden of proof firmly in the court of the one who claims science operates above and safe from the influences that corrupt the whole world.
Last edited:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I suspect you can't count.Einstuck said:
Ah, so your one of these corrupt, criminal professionals we have been hearing so much about.Einstuck said:
Ithink you have demonstrated the futility of that.Einstuck said:
Well, I am pretty sure I'm a teacher, because I get paid a substantial sum of money each month to teach.Einstuck said:
When you merit it I shall do so. Until then I shall treat you with contempt.Einstuck said:
Happy to oblige, since you seem unwilling to deal with the thread topic.Einstuck said:
Einstuck:
- What qualifications you have. You claimed that you were a scientists. Do you have a PhD? What are you a scientists of?
- Where did you obtain your qualifications?
- Have you ever submitted a scientific article to a scientific journal?
- Have you been through the peer review process?
Looks like you need an education in manners, as well as science and logic.
What is ironic here is that you assume that your statement is similiar to 'Case 2'. The problem is that you make an unsupported assertion (aka. Scientists are as dishonest as lawyers), and then act as though it is 'obviously' correct, because it 'just makes sense', and 'agrees with all available evidence'. Hence, in your warped mind, the burden of proof doesn't rest on you to support it.
The problem is that at the heart of the matter is that you are guilty of making baseless assumptions. You tell us that your assertion is 'well supported' and 'agrees with all available evidence', yet refuse to produce one shred of evidence to support your conjecture. Ophiliote and myself seriously doubt your statement, hence even on the surface, it is not as 'obvious' as you seem to claim.
Your excuse for not supporting your statement is a typical 'WELL, IT'S SO OBVIOUS, SO I DON'T HAVE TO SUPPORT IT! THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS WITH YOU TO DEMONSTRATE THAT I'M WRONG'. This begs the question of why you don't do us the favour of providing evidence to support your assertion in the first place, if it is so obviously true. Until you provide factual evidence to support your conjecture, it remains just that... unsupported conjecture.
Quite simply, it can't 'obviously' be correct, since two people on this forum are questioning it. The fact that we are questioning your assertion means that it is far from being 'factual' on the surface. Hence, according to your own faulty logic, you are obliged to support it with evidence.
Even logic contradicts your statement that 'scientists are as equally corrupt and deceptive as politicians and lawyers'. Politics and the legal profession are two occupations where a certain level of deceit is necessary. Politicians often need to lie and embellish the truth to win over voters, and lawyers often need to lie to their clients, and in court. Scientists don't 'need' to lie. In fact, uncovering 'lies' and 'falsehoods' in science ensure that you will win recognition and fame in the scientific circle.
So, since your statement appears to contradict with basic logic, the burden of proof rests with you.
Wrong again!
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
Oh, but wait, I forgot. Backing up my claims with independent sources is an 'appeal to authority', even if they are experts. Why? BECAUSE EINSTUCK THE SELF PROCLAIMED SCIENTIST SAYS SO!
So instead, I'm just going to say that I wasn't appealing to authority, BECAUSE I SAY SO! Hah, debating, Einstuck style. Don't back your shit up with independent evidence and experts in the field, just pretend that you are the sole authority in the universe.
I wait with baited breathe for you to demonstrate why your statement that 'scientists are as dishonest as lawyers' is so 'obvious' and 'factual'.
I'm sure that if your statement is so 'obviously factual', then you should be able to find statistical evidence to support it with great ease.
I'm afraid that they aren't meaningless. They make quite clear what consists as a 'burden of proof' logic fallacy, which you continuously engage in.
It has nothing to do with votes, I'm afraid. You continue to redefine 'burden of proof' to suit your own needs, without realizing that you contradict well known fact.
You've failed to answer my previous questions, which include:
- What qualifications you have. You claimed that you were a scientists. Do you have a PhD? What are you a scientists of?
- Where did you obtain your qualifications?
- Have you ever submitted a scientific article to a scientific journal?
- Have you been through the peer review process?
You're in dire need of education, my friend.
I was not attempting to 'wow' you with authority, I was merely posting independent sources to back up my case, quoting the relevant portions. As to date, you have FAILED to back up your case with any independent, peer-reviewed literature, merely 'say so' arguments. The peer review process is severely flawed because... because... because... EINSTUCK SAYS SO, SO THERE!!!
My my, I have touched a nerve, haven't I? You're frothing at the mouth, old boy. And to think, just a few posts ago, you were belittling me because of a spelling error. Then again, it's quite OK for you to be a condescending jackass, but God forbid if I do likewise...
Looks like you need an education in manners, as well as science and logic.
Another unsupported assertion.
That's why you have corrected many articles there... anyone can edit Wikipedia.
I agree. Your attempt at ignoring basic logic procedure is idiotic.
I reviewed your two cases with mild amusement, and then dismissed them, because you are committing a 'false dilemma' logic fallacy. Your two scenarios are not the only two scenarios in existence, and you also fail to provide any reputable sources to demonstrate that those procedures are indeed followed in a formal debate. Once again, it's merely your 'say so'. You claim to exercise logic, but I have yet to see your brand of 'faulty' logic exercised by any scholar.
What is ironic here is that you assume that your statement is similiar to 'Case 2'. The problem is that you make an unsupported assertion (aka. Scientists are as dishonest as lawyers), and then act as though it is 'obviously' correct, because it 'just makes sense', and 'agrees with all available evidence'. Hence, in your warped mind, the burden of proof doesn't rest on you to support it.
The problem is that at the heart of the matter is that you are guilty of making baseless assumptions. You tell us that your assertion is 'well supported' and 'agrees with all available evidence', yet refuse to produce one shred of evidence to support your conjecture. Ophiliote and myself seriously doubt your statement, hence even on the surface, it is not as 'obvious' as you seem to claim.
Your excuse for not supporting your statement is a typical 'WELL, IT'S SO OBVIOUS, SO I DON'T HAVE TO SUPPORT IT! THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS WITH YOU TO DEMONSTRATE THAT I'M WRONG'. This begs the question of why you don't do us the favour of providing evidence to support your assertion in the first place, if it is so obviously true. Until you provide factual evidence to support your conjecture, it remains just that... unsupported conjecture.
Correct, and you have presented neither facts nor logic. This may surprise you, but in science, 'facts' are often presented in the form of 'sources', because quite often you cannot do your own research. Sources demonstrate that you are not just making shit up, but that experiments and observations have been made by others.
The problem here is that logic alone is not enough regarding scientific investigations. If you wish to support your pitiful assertions, you need to reference current research and experiments conducted into the topic at hand. Begin by providing statistical studies that demonstrate that scientists are as dishonest as lawyers. Oh wait, I forgot, you don't need to support your assertion! Despite making an absolute assertion, the burden of proof doesn't rest with you, because you statement is 'obviously' correct. Why is it obviously correct? BECAUSE YOU SAY SO!!!
Quite simply, it can't 'obviously' be correct, since two people on this forum are questioning it. The fact that we are questioning your assertion means that it is far from being 'factual' on the surface. Hence, according to your own faulty logic, you are obliged to support it with evidence.
Even logic contradicts your statement that 'scientists are as equally corrupt and deceptive as politicians and lawyers'. Politics and the legal profession are two occupations where a certain level of deceit is necessary. Politicians often need to lie and embellish the truth to win over voters, and lawyers often need to lie to their clients, and in court. Scientists don't 'need' to lie. In fact, uncovering 'lies' and 'falsehoods' in science ensure that you will win recognition and fame in the scientific circle.
So, since your statement appears to contradict with basic logic, the burden of proof rests with you.
Wrong again!
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
Oh, but wait, I forgot. Backing up my claims with independent sources is an 'appeal to authority', even if they are experts. Why? BECAUSE EINSTUCK THE SELF PROCLAIMED SCIENTIST SAYS SO!
So instead, I'm just going to say that I wasn't appealing to authority, BECAUSE I SAY SO! Hah, debating, Einstuck style. Don't back your shit up with independent evidence and experts in the field, just pretend that you are the sole authority in the universe.
Again you totally misinterpret what I said in previous posts. When I asked for evidence that scientists have a habit of distorting data, and are riddled with bias, you told me to go and read about half a dozen books. That is a prime example of 'Shifting the Burden of Proof'. Instead of providing the evidence to support your argument, and quoting sections which you felt relevant from each book, you demanded that I go and find the evidence for you. This has nothing to do with me using logic, it had to do with you being damn lazy. It's a cop out.
But who claimed this? Nobody made that claim, they merely asked you to support your claim. Once again, 'He who asserts must prove'.
I wait with baited breathe for you to demonstrate why your statement that 'scientists are as dishonest as lawyers' is so 'obvious' and 'factual'.
I'm sure that if your statement is so 'obviously factual', then you should be able to find statistical evidence to support it with great ease.
Einstuck...
Africa is the richest continent on the Earth. I'm so obviously right, that the burden of proof rests with you to show otherwise. Although that might cost you a plane ticket, and a camera...
Africa is the richest continent on the Earth. I'm so obviously right, that the burden of proof rests with you to show otherwise. Although that might cost you a plane ticket, and a camera...
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Yes, it is crazy. It also displays that you didn't actually read the link I provided, because if you had, you wouldn't be saying something so bloody stupid.
Mountainhare,
Do you understand that this url you think I haven't read is not the source of the experiment but only an interpretation? It has further references at the bottom of the page which provide further interpretations etc.
This is all it does no matter how many times you say red herring.
This you don't have to prove, because the unscientific methodology you use, and the lack of understanding regarding debate make any other position more implausible. In this case, the burden of proof quite rightly would be on me to show you were not a teacher, since your incompetance is overwhelming evidence that you are.Opheliabuttocks said:
No. Once again you have reversed the burden of proof, because you are used to being in a position of unquestioned authority over high-school students. Among adults, the normal practice is to treat others as equals UNTIL or UNLESS they demonstrate they should be treated otherwise. 'Contempt' is a ridiculous form of treatment, even to inferiors, akin to NAZI attitudes toward Jewish scientific theory.
mounting-air said:
I don't volunteer personal information over the internet.
This is a sensible practice recommended by banks and police forces everywhere. And again it has nothing to do with our conversation,
which should stand or fall based upon logic and publicly available evidence.
Lets have a look at what happens to scientists who DONT take security precautions:
Death Count for Microbiologists: Now over 80 murdered or missing
Current Death Count for International Scientists
What does it mean when the top international MicroBiologists are all killed?
These men were all leading experts in Biological Warfare, Vaccines, AIDS and DNA targeting by racial profile. Let me spell it out: The Military Industrial Complex through the Big International Drug Corporations and Covert Operations teams are planning to wipe out whole populations of ethnic groups, like Arabs, Chinese, and Blacks.
Explain why my two scenarios aren't the two basic cases inclusive of all others: vis - either it is obvious that one side is more plausible than the other, or it isn't. What is the third case you imagine, not covered there? No 'sources' are needed, again, because it is a case of simple and exhaustive classification (logic). And whether formal debating practice or rules reflect same is irrelevant, and no evidence from that quarter can speak to the issue one way or another. Again, you habitually appeal to authority, even when it is totally inappropriate, and independant thinking is required. This clearly shows you are 'educated' to kiss ass in a system that encourages 'obedience' and homage more than scientific examination in the cold light of logic.
Your Sources Good/My Sources Bad: Here the game is unwinnable according to your 'rules'. The best way to present public evidence is to list it and/or where to find it. This I did: I listed four excellent books dedicated to cataloging all the historical instances of fudging and fraud in the name of science. Apparently, (since they are not convenient weblinks?) when I quote or refer to sources, it is completely ignored or denied, and charges of 'failing to provide sources' is repeatedly made. Whereas when YOU quote or refer to 'sources' we must all somehow concede it as irrefutable 'proof' that you are right. Again, great rhetorical tricks bound to bamboozle high school students but worthless in a scientific review of facts.
Form and Content: Scientific facts are often presented in the FORM of sources, to direct researchers and investigators to work already done, or done by others. However, this doesn't at all show "you have not been making stuff up", nor does having others do the work or part of it have any bearing on the logic or factual content of your position. It is meaningless, unless you value 'authorities' and then tabulate their agreement in a 'voting-like' process. You have been trapped in the educational system so long, you seem unable to perceive that agreement from independant researchers, while 'nice', only has an indirect bearing on the plausibility of your argument, which should be primarily based upon logic and factual content.
For the first time, you have actually started to take on the issue. Congradulations.
Let us examine your thesis.
Part I: Other professions lie. I heartily concede that both politicians often deceive and lie in the their professional activities. So far this is merely evidence in favour of my original argument, which as worded necessarily entails the fact that politicians, lawyers, and other professionals are in fact criminals. Thank you for the corroborating evidence. As evidence FOR the honesty of scientists however, it is a complete non-sequitor. You are missing one half of your syllogism.
Part II: Scientists Don't Lie. (a) They don't need to. (b) They are rewarded for uncovering lies. You've made two assertions. Where is your evidence?
Einstuck said:
perhaps not that hard. a few relevant quotes should do the trick.
the ideals
<li>universalism: the expectation that scientists should judge empirical claims according to impersonal criteria, without regard to the identity of their author.
<li>disinterestedness: the expectation that scientists will subordinate their own biases and interests to the advancement of knowledge.
<li>communalism: the expectation that discoveries will be freely shared and dedicated to the community of scientists
<li>organized skepticism:the expectation that scientists will subject empirical claims to systematic scrutiny and validation. (merton, barber)
reality (with ufology as an example)
According to Merton, science norms are firmly prescriptive. The norms are expressed in the form of prescriptions, proscriptions, preferences and permissions. They are legitimized in terms of institutional values. These imperatives [or norms] transmitted by precept and example, and reinforced by sanctions, are in varying degrees internalized by the scientist, thus fashioning his scientific consciencee Although the ethos of science has not been codified, it can be inferred from the moral consensus of scientists as expressed in use and wont, in countless writings on the scientific spirit and in moral indignation directed toward contraventions of the ethos.
The norms of science are transferred by socialization and reinforced by punishments and rewards. This is particularly clear when science and scientists depart from the posited norms as they do in ufology. Social responses to the violation of norms are key points of study for the researcher trying to understand how the interaction between science and society shapes the practices and conduct of the scientist. Moreover, the norms of science are often seen as morally superior by scientists.
The mores of science produce a methodological rationale, but they are also binding, not because they are particularly efficient, but because they are believed right and good. They are moral as well as technical prescriptions.
As is the case with other institutions, the institution of science has developed a complex of reward systems for living up to the norms and a corresponding system of punishments for those who violate those norms. By all measures, ufology violates scientific norms
The value of the work of scientists is judged by their peers, operating largely thorough invisible colleges, or geographically distributed networks of peers working in the same discipline, in universities and laboratories. The currency of science is publications, awards, promotion, and recognition; the more a scientist's work is cited with approval by his or her peers in the literature, the more he or she is respected and valued by his or her peers.
When a scientist behaves outside of the consensual norms of science and ventures into studies of anomalies such as those of ufology, he or she loses peer esteem, and eventually stature and place in society. If enough peer esteem is lost, the scientist loses traction in the field and his or her career falters. In the worst case, the scientist is shunned by his or her peers. By all measures, engaging in ufology is an extremely dangerous activity for a scientist. (Diana Palmer Hoyt)
examples
Nevertheless Nature was vilified by pro-Quist and Chapela (QC hereafter) forces for siding with industrial interests. One criticism that stung Nature more than any other was the suggestion that an advertising brand partnership with a handful of biotechnology companies was a force leading the journal to ostensibly side with those who attacked Quist and Chapela. Nature, of course, finds odious any charges that it sides with anyone when it comes to publishing research. Maize, Genes, and Peer Review
elitism and status quo are some factors that indicate peer review is, in addition to its entirely legitimate endeavour, a system that also attempts to censor, that which goes against existing frameworks. Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?
*a few excerpts.....
* One example is Rosalyn Yalow, who described how her Nobel-prize-winning paper was received by the journals. "In 1955 we submitted the paper to Science.... The paper was held there for eight months before it was reviewed. It was finally rejected. We submitted it to the Journal of Clinical Investigations, which also rejected it." (Quoted from The Joys of Research, edited by Walter Shropshire, p. 109).
*Another example is Günter Blobel, who in a news conference given just after he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine, said that the main problem one encounters in one's research is "when your grants and papers are rejected because some stupid reviewer rejected them for dogmatic adherence to old ideas." According to the New York Times (October 12, 1999, p. A29), these comments "drew thunderous applause from the hundreds of sympathetic colleagues and younger scientists in the auditorium."
*In an article for Twentieth Century Physics, a book commissioned by the American Physical Society (the professional organization for U. S. physicists) to describe the great achievements of 20 th century physics, the inventor of chaos theory, Mitchell J. Feigenbaum, described the reception that his revolutionary papers on chaos theory received: Both papers were rejected, the first after a half-year delay. By then, in 1977, over a thousand copies of the first preprint had been shipped. This has been my full experience. Papers on established subjects are immediately accepted. Every novel paper of mine, without exception, has been rejected by the refereeing process. The reader can easily gather that I regard this entire process as a false guardian and wastefully dishonest. (Volume III, p. 1850).
*Earlier in the same volume on 20th century physics, in a history of the development of optical physics, the invention of the laser by Theodore Maiman was described. The result was so important that it was announced in the New York Times on July 7, 1960. But the leading American physics journal, Physical Review Letters, rejected Maiman's paper on how to make a laser (p. 1426).
*Scientific eminence is no protection from a peer review system gone wild. John Bardeen, the only man to ever have won two Nobel Prizes in physics, had difficulty publishing a theory in low-temperature solid state physics (the area of one of his Prizes) that went against the established view. But rank hath its privileges. Bardeen appealed to his friend David Lazarus, who was editor in chief for the American Physical Society. Lazarus investigated and found that "the referee was totally out of line. I couldn't believe it. John really did have a hard time with [his] last few papers and it was not his fault at all. They were important papers, they did get published, but they gave him a harder time than he should have had." (True Genius: The Life and Science of John Bardeen, p. 300).
*Stephen W. Hawking is the world's most famous physicist. According to his first wife Jane (Music to Move the Stars: A Life with Stephen Hawking, p. 239), when Hawking submitted to Nature what is generally regarded as his most important paper, the paper on black hole evaporation, the paper was initially rejected. I have heard from colleagues who must remain nameless that when Hawking submitted to Physical Review what I personally regard as his most important paper, his paper showing that a most fundamental law of physics called "unitarity" would be violated in black hole evaporation, it, too, was initially rejected. (The word on the street is that the initial referee was the Institute for Advanced Study physicist Freeman Dyson.)
*Today it is known that the Hawaiian Islands were formed sequentially as the Pacific plate moved over a hot spot deep inside the Earth. The theory was first developed in the paper by an eminent Princeton geophysicist, Tuzo Wilson: "I … sent [my paper] to the Journal of Geophysical Research. They turned it down…. They said my paper had no mathematics in it, no new data, and that it didn't agree with the current views. Therefore, it must be no good. Apparently, whether one gets turned down or not depends largely on the reviewer. The editors, too, if they don't see it your way, or if they think it's something unusual, may turn it down. Well, this annoyed me, and instead of keeping the rejection letter, I threw it into the wastepaper basket. I sent the manuscript to the newly founded Canadian Journal of Physics. That was not a very obvious place to send it, but I was a Canadian physicist. I thought they would publish almost anything I wrote, so I sent it there and they published it!" (Quoted from The Joys of Research, p. 130.)
*The most important development in cloning after the original breakthrough of Dolly the Sheep was the cloning of mice. The result was once again described on the front page of the New York Times, where it was also mentioned that the paper was rejected for publication by the leading American science journal, Science.
*Everyone knows today that the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago when a giant asteroid hit the Earth. Science did publish the article presenting this theory, but only after a fierce fight with the referees, as one of these referees later confessed. On the Nobel Prize web page one can read the autobiographies of recent laureates. Quite a few complain that they had great difficulty publishing the ideas that won them the Prize. One does not find similar statements by Nobel Prize winners earlier in the century. Why is there more resistance to new ideas today?
You are absolutely correct.mountainhare said:
Africa is the largest and richest continent on earth next to Asia. Its resources exeed that of the former Soviet Union, and are largely untapped. It is the greatest economic and material prize on earth, largely undefended, and now eagerly being fought over and divided up by the industrialized nations.
As everybody knows, to conquer the last worthwhile earthly frontier and 'own' it, all you have to do is get rid of the Blacks. And that is why 25,000,000 blacks in Southern Africa now have AIDS. In less than a decade, if things go as planned by the big Western industrial complex, Africa will be empty of the inconvenient people who live there now and might make claims upon it regarding its vast resources, rare-earth and mineral/industrial wealth.
So although the burden of proof would indeed be with me to show otherwise, I have no reason or interest in doing so. I'd rather just state the obvious. The West is engaging in genocide on a massive scale, and its leaders will be cast into the Lake of Fire for murder.
Einstuck,
Lately I have seen a couple of your posts (not just in this thread) relate to the oppression or planned genocide of an ethnic group. Are you serious about that claim? Or do you just enjoy tossing that out there? I'd just like to know that beforehand.
[Renrue]
Lately I have seen a couple of your posts (not just in this thread) relate to the oppression or planned genocide of an ethnic group. Are you serious about that claim? Or do you just enjoy tossing that out there? I'd just like to know that beforehand.
[Renrue]
I strongly believe there is a deliberate plan in place to deal with "overpopulation" by the Western European power elite, which by that they mean overpopulation of ethnic groups.Renrue said:Einstuck,
Lately I have seen a couple of your posts (not just in this thread) relate to the oppression or planned genocide of an ethnic group. Are you serious about that claim? Or do you just enjoy tossing that out there? I'd just like to know that beforehand.
[Renrue]
All the evidence points to this. It is precisely this knee-jerk xenophobic reaction that paralyzes the White world and is causing them to 'cross the street' and pass the robbery and genocide of the Black man in Africa on the other side. If this isn't the ultimate case of Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan being acted out on an international scale, nothing is.
Let's refresh everyone's memory as to the contents of the parable of the Good Samaritan:
Note in particular, the two groups who ignore the man who was robbed and beaten half to death, A Rabbi (representing Israel) and a Levite (representing Christendom). Whether in collusion or from an aversion to have to do something that would 'cost' something, these two characters do NOT save the victim (the dying Black man), but pass by pretending nothing is happening.
The Samaritan (who does this 'ethnic' minority represent? grassroots Christians and anyone with the compassion and the will to help) is the only person who actually helps the victim, and the corrollary is that this person/group is the only one who really fulfills the Commandment necessary for Salvation and Eternal Life.
Not everyone will be passing the grade and moving to the next level.
Last edited:
Einstuck:
Otherwise, all I have in support of your claim that you are a 'scientist' is your 'word'. And to be honest, your 'word' is worth dog shit on my boot heel. And for all I know, you could be have a degree in computer science, which doesn't give you the right to brand yourself an authority in the area of evolution.
Also, your two cases each have gross logical flaws, and unsupported premises.
In Case 1, you begin with the premise that the evidence has already been examined scientifically in order to arrive at a conclusion of equal plausibility. In other words, you are engaging in the logic fallacy of presuming the answer.
Quite simply, if you are to adhere to the belief that Case 1 is relevant to our debate, you must demonstrate that each argument is 'equally valid'. Remember, this equality must be demonstrated, not assumed, otherwise you are presuming the answer. Your 'politicians are more dishonest than lawyers' statement has been assumed, not demonstrated.
You commit the same basic fallacy (presuming the answer) in Case 2. You start with the premise that one 'side' is more plausible than another. The problem here is that such a premise must also be demonstrated scientifically. The argument which you claim is 'more plausible' must be DEMONSTRATED, via facts and evidence, as 'more plausible', otherwise you are once again engaging in the logic fallacy of 'presuming the answer'.
Your 'politicians are more dishonest than lawyers' statement has been assumed, not demonstrated. Hence, I fail to realize how it is more 'plausible' than the opposing statement, given that neither statement has yet been supported by facts, statistics and evidence. You claim that your statement is supported by a wealth of evidence. This begs the question of why you refuse to put any up for public scrutiny. Until your do so, your assertion remains an assumption, and your two 'cases' (Case 1 and 2) cannot apply to this debate, since you have failed to support the basic premise that your statement is 'equally' as valid as the opposing statement, or that it is 'superior' to the opposing statement.
Given that you have failed to provide a 'framework' of debating logic which is superior to mine, we will be forced to adhere to 'my' (aka. the general public's) rules regarding the burden of proof. Since nobody made an absolute statement that scientists WEREN'T more dishonest than politicians, yet you made an absolute assertion that they 'obviously' ARE, then the burden of proof rests with you to support your assertion. He who asserts must prove.
Quite simply, unless your statement is backed up by observable facts, or you were a member of the scientific team who performed the experiment, you have to provide the reference to the primary literature for others to verify your statement. Otherwise, who's to tell whether you are making shit up?
To expect the opponent to go and read the book, and then decide which sections are relevant your argument, is the height of laziness on your part.
For example, regarding the Chromosome Challenge, I did not just post a web link and tout 'Hey Creationists, go read this! Evolution is obviously supported!!!111ONEONE.
Instead, I:
- Summarized the web site.
- Quoted information which I felt was highly relevant, and explained why it supports a common ancestor for chimps and humans.
- Clarified any relevant questions which posters had.
This just gets better and better! And you claim to be a 'scientist'. Obviously the burden of proof rests with to show that you are, since every statement you have made on this thread points to the fact that you are anything but a scientist.
I wish I had taken your advice for an essay I was writing regarding stem cell research for first year molecular biology. Instead of going through the tedious process of writing a 5,000 word essay, I could just have just said "Stem cell research is GOOD! If you don't believe me, here are the titles of books which obviously prove that my case is strongly supported". And then I would have given a list of sources which I felt were relevant (or I just pulled out of my ass!) Boy, instead of writing a 5,000 word essay, I could have 'supported' my point of view with a few book titles.
Yet another red herring. I'm not asking for your address, location or age. I'm merely asking you tell me what you are scientist OF, how many articles you have submitted to scientific journals, and which university you attended (which tells me nothing about your CURRENT location).
Otherwise, all I have in support of your claim that you are a 'scientist' is your 'word'. And to be honest, your 'word' is worth dog shit on my boot heel. And for all I know, you could be have a degree in computer science, which doesn't give you the right to brand yourself an authority in the area of evolution.
Well, there is the 'he who asserts must prove' case, which you convieniently neglected to mention. Such logic is used in criminal trials, where no matter how guilty a criminal may look, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution to prove him guilty. There are a number of other logical proceedings, but I'm not going into them, since only one extra example was needed to demonstrate that you are committing a false dilemma logic fallacy.
Also, your two cases each have gross logical flaws, and unsupported premises.
In Case 1, you begin with the premise that the evidence has already been examined scientifically in order to arrive at a conclusion of equal plausibility. In other words, you are engaging in the logic fallacy of presuming the answer.
Quite simply, if you are to adhere to the belief that Case 1 is relevant to our debate, you must demonstrate that each argument is 'equally valid'. Remember, this equality must be demonstrated, not assumed, otherwise you are presuming the answer. Your 'politicians are more dishonest than lawyers' statement has been assumed, not demonstrated.
You commit the same basic fallacy (presuming the answer) in Case 2. You start with the premise that one 'side' is more plausible than another. The problem here is that such a premise must also be demonstrated scientifically. The argument which you claim is 'more plausible' must be DEMONSTRATED, via facts and evidence, as 'more plausible', otherwise you are once again engaging in the logic fallacy of 'presuming the answer'.
Your 'politicians are more dishonest than lawyers' statement has been assumed, not demonstrated. Hence, I fail to realize how it is more 'plausible' than the opposing statement, given that neither statement has yet been supported by facts, statistics and evidence. You claim that your statement is supported by a wealth of evidence. This begs the question of why you refuse to put any up for public scrutiny. Until your do so, your assertion remains an assumption, and your two 'cases' (Case 1 and 2) cannot apply to this debate, since you have failed to support the basic premise that your statement is 'equally' as valid as the opposing statement, or that it is 'superior' to the opposing statement.
Given that you have failed to provide a 'framework' of debating logic which is superior to mine, we will be forced to adhere to 'my' (aka. the general public's) rules regarding the burden of proof. Since nobody made an absolute statement that scientists WEREN'T more dishonest than politicians, yet you made an absolute assertion that they 'obviously' ARE, then the burden of proof rests with you to support your assertion. He who asserts must prove.
Wrong again. You need sources to support your premises. Once you do so, your logic might follow, assuming that it is not fallicious.
Quite simply, unless your statement is backed up by observable facts, or you were a member of the scientific team who performed the experiment, you have to provide the reference to the primary literature for others to verify your statement. Otherwise, who's to tell whether you are making shit up?
Wrong. They aren't 'my' rules, they are the rules governing a productive discussion. Defensiveness, and a stubborn refusal to support generalized statements with evidence, is combative, and inhibits a formal discussion.
Wrong again. You providing nothing except the title of a few books, which may or may not be relevant to your assertions. In the real world, a discussion involves not just posting the name of a source, but drawing on what is relevant, summarizing it, explaining the content, and then explaining why it supports your position. I done exactly that at the start of this thread, and when other posters demanded clarification, I gladly explaining anything which they found confusing (which was RELEVANT to my argument)
To expect the opponent to go and read the book, and then decide which sections are relevant your argument, is the height of laziness on your part.
For example, regarding the Chromosome Challenge, I did not just post a web link and tout 'Hey Creationists, go read this! Evolution is obviously supported!!!111ONEONE.
Instead, I:
- Summarized the web site.
- Quoted information which I felt was highly relevant, and explained why it supports a common ancestor for chimps and humans.
- Clarified any relevant questions which posters had.
Yes, your high school tricks and armchair science are quite amusing, but they fail to hold up to scrutiny. Even in scientific papers, the author does not just list a book, and then say 'Yeah, well, that supports my argument! If you don't believe me, go and read it!'. They quote relevant sections, and then link it to their contention. You have failed to do this. And until you do so, your little books titles are just that, book titles. They will have meaning when you quote relevant sections. If you have possession of these books, it shouldn't be a chore to quote relevant evidence which demonstrates how dishonest scientists are.
So scientists just cite the titles of books and other scientific articles, without giving a summary, quoting the relevant portions, and explaining why it supports their contention?
This just gets better and better! And you claim to be a 'scientist'. Obviously the burden of proof rests with to show that you are, since every statement you have made on this thread points to the fact that you are anything but a scientist.
I wish I had taken your advice for an essay I was writing regarding stem cell research for first year molecular biology. Instead of going through the tedious process of writing a 5,000 word essay, I could just have just said "Stem cell research is GOOD! If you don't believe me, here are the titles of books which obviously prove that my case is strongly supported". And then I would have given a list of sources which I felt were relevant (or I just pulled out of my ass!) Boy, instead of writing a 5,000 word essay, I could have 'supported' my point of view with a few book titles.
For the fiftieth time, you have refused to provide actual evidence to support your claims. But what do I expect from one such as you?
My statements are so obviously correct on the surface, that the burden of proof falls on you to refute them. Remember that, Einstuck? When I demanded evidence, you pulled that fast one, so I think it's time that I return the favour. I am not obliged to provide evidence for my rebuttal, since you refused to provide evidence for your original claim. An unsupported assertion is all that is needed to counter an unsupported assertion, since the opposing arguments contain equal strength (if any).
Last edited:
Actually, it is trivial to document the circumstances leading to the current genocide.
(1) At the turn of the century, your 'scientist' heroes cleverly noted that ethnic populations were multiplying far faster than the 'older' Caucasian races.
(2) This was noted by the European elite ruling class with alarm, and policies were rather quickly formulated to deal with the menace.
(3) Everything from the dirty deals behind closed doors with Churchill, Hitler and Stalin to Planned Parenthood and forced sterilization was not just planned, but actively used on a global scale, from blankets laced with Smallpox for Indians and wiping out their food source (Bison) to concentration camps and contrived 'wars' between ethnic groups.
(4) Long after the more primitive forms of Nazism were publicly abandoned by the power elite, the doctrine of 'overpopulation' and its sinister true meaning were retained. Don't forget a British king had to resign over supporting HItler.
(5) It is well documented that the powerful super-rich like Henry Ford et al were busy selling tanks and weapons to BOTH sides in every war, so as to speedily exterminate the maximum number of undesirable ethnic poor classes.
(6) After the complete betrayal of the West in the form of 200,000 German (unrepentant Nazis) skilled technical people being simply 'pardoned' and allowed to take over the upper management of US based international corporations, the quiet takeover of govenment institutions was ripe.
(7) Instead of dismantling the German Espionage cartel ODESSA, it was grafted en mass onto the American NATO infrastructure. The excuse was the 'need' to spy on the Russians. The horrifying result was that the 'weed' simply took over and engulfed the Western defense system. The reason for the easy success of this takeover was the striking agreement in philosophy between whites in the West and Germans in the first place. From similar racial stock, they were both a pair of greedy xenophobes.
I could go on, but what is the point?
Everybody concedes the massive amount of accumulated evidence of the 'glass ceiling', and the rampant racism and systemic xenophobia that penetrates every sphere of corporate America and the international elite.
The best way to see who is being killed is to look and see who is being killed!
Code:
[B][U]Examples: US casualties Enemy casualties[/U][/B]
WW2 : 300,000 9,000,000 (Ethnic Russians)
4,000,000 (Orientals Jap/Chin)
Korea: 50,000 1,000,000 (Koreans & Chinese)
Viet Nam: 50,000 5,000,000 (4 million civilians)
Gulf War (1) 150 20,000-50,000 (2,000 civilians)
--------------------------------------------------------
Totals less than 1/2 million [B] 20 million [/B] ethnics, mostly civilians.Now lets reflect a moment upon how many American 'casualties' were actually
just more ethnic casualties: Blacks and Mexicans, Indians, and other working class
kids, forced to join the army as the only way out of economic cess-pools
artificially created by the pull-out of jobs normally provided by big corporations.
The gag is simple. How do you get rid of your 'homies'? (excess blacks?)
Put them in uniform, ship them overseas to kill other ethnic groups,
then send them back in body bags.
Lets guesstimate that the actual number of White middle class American casualties
is actually less than half the official estimates, inflated by counting negroes and other working class expendables: oh, say 200,000 max.
Thats about a kill ratio of 100/1. Clearly well worth the cost,
if your goal is to keep the civilized world mostly White.
Lets now recap:
The last 100 years worth of wars, overt and covert has cost about 25 million
or more ethnic lives, not counting the millions of North American Indians who would be alive now. (and less than a quarter million whites have died supervising the killing, not counting a couple of million Germans who were directly fighting the Russians.)
Call it 30,000,000 people, over about five generations,
giving about a Billion people whose lives were cut short or
were never allowed to even be born, in their own countries.
That's one sixth of the earth's population, all ethnic.
And lo and behold, now another 25 million Blacks are dying of 'AIDS',
because the West has figured out that its alot cheaper to 'vaccinate'
unsuspecting populations than use bullets.
Last edited:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Curious. What business are you associated with that would tolerate incompetence? (Please note the correct spelling by the way. I know English is not your native language, but you were starting to do quite well.) Indeed, what commercial enterprise can afford to tolerate poor teaching, when adequately trained staff are vital to their profitability. Perhaps you are in the public sector and can get away with that sort of thing. I'll keep that in mind.Einstuck said:
While we are on the personal insult trail, was Opheliabuttocks the best you could do with a name change? I guess you were just faking an understanding of classical languages earlier.
Having read some of your subsequent posts I realise I am very likely wasting my time here. [I'm sure I am wasting yours, which is some consolation.] I thought you were just one of those naive, ignorant creationists, who are not intrinsically bad, just misguided. Now I see you are into conspiracy theory and the like. A real nutter. Such a waste of a brain.
Are you going to address the point of the thread anytime soon, by the way?
Go ahead. I'm bored. Give me an example.
Oh dear me. You have jumped to a concussion, haven't you. Do you really think the only place where people are taught is in high-school. Perhaps for you this was true. I teach adults rangng in age from early twenties to their fifties, everyone of whom has at least a first degree and some of whom have doctorates. Everyone of them working in an industry staffed by some of the most aggressive individuals on the planet, and most of them alpha-males. You had better believe that I have to demonstrate my technical authority to them for every second I am in front of them.
So in one sense you are correct: when I teach I am in a position of unquestioned authority, because I demonstrate my right to that authority with every word, every sentence and every paragraph.
We don't want your bank account number. Just tell us what your degrees are in. You can lie if you want - after all, as a professional person that should apparently come easily to you.