Now that is real faith

[Sarkus]

Glad to hear that you agree that Dawkins is mostly outside of science

Edit : BTW, he does actually say it ... if you bothered to read further ..."And where have I said that Dawkins is being scientific, or that his strong brand of atheism is scientific?"

This really is you in a nutshell - unable to actually understand the position put against you in an argument.
Where have I said Dawkins is being scientific?
Where have I said Dawkins is being unscientific?

My point, that you missed, was that I had not said anything about whether Dawkins is scientific or not.

You make assumptions, and you argue against those assumptions.
You create straw men, LG.

So no, I did not say that I think Dawkins is mostly outside of science.
I have not said anything on the matter.

Please do not make stuff up.

 

[Sarkus]

My point is that you can't say abiogenesis is a science and discussions about the origins of the universe are not without sounding whimsical ... unless of course you can actually show how life is engineered from lifeless matter (Heads down and bums up now ... seems you better get those pop tarts into action with some natural processes ....)

Theories on the origins of the universe are unscientific - they are unfalsifiable. I am not aware of any that are falsifiable.

Theories on the origins of life, however, can be scientific - and Abiogenesis, or at least individual theories within the realm, can be testable, and falsifiable.

Abiogenesis IS a branch of science, and there is no whimsy involved.
Or do you think something can only be considered a science when a positive result is obtained??


However with regard how life actually started on Earth, it can never be known. But Abiogenesis is more about life in general coming from non-living elements.

But if you care to explain why you consider abiogenesis not to be a science, perhaps your comment may sound more than just personal incredulity?
Although perhaps another thread would be more appropriate.

 

[lightgigantic]

Theories on the origins of the universe are unscientific - they are unfalsifiable. I am not aware of any that are falsifiable.

Theories on the origins of life, however, can be scientific - and Abiogenesis, or at least individual theories within the realm, can be testable, and falsifiable.

Abiogenesis IS a branch of science, and there is no whimsy involved.
Or do you think something can only be considered a science when a positive result is obtained??


However with regard how life actually started on Earth, it can never be known. But Abiogenesis is more about life in general coming from non-living elements.

needless to say cosmogonists would have a field day with you ...

But if you care to explain why you consider abiogenesis not to be a science, perhaps your comment may sound more than just personal incredulity?
Although perhaps another thread would be more appropriate.

I never said abiogenesis wasn't a science .. nor cosmogony either, for the record ... to say so would kind run amiss of ....

"While it is true that persecution of the Jews has a very long history in Europe, it is also true that science in the twentieth century revived and absolutized persecution by giving it a fresh rationale — Jewishness was not religious or cultural, but genetic. Therefore no appeal could be made against the brute fact of a Jewish grandparent.
Dawkins deals with all this in one sentence. Hitler did his evil "in the name of. . . an insane and unscientific eugenics theory." But eugenics is science as surely as totemism is religion. That either is in error is beside the point. Science quite appropriately acknowledges that error should be assumed, and at best it proceeds by a continuous process of criticism meant to isolate and identify error. So bad science is still science in more or less the same sense that bad religion is still religion. That both of them can do damage on a huge scale is clear. The prestige of both is a great part of the problem, and in the modern period the credibility of anything called science is enormous. As the history of eugenics proves, science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it.
There is indeed historical precedent in the Spanish Inquisition for the notion of hereditary Judaism. But the fact that the worst religious thought of the sixteenth century can be likened to the worst scientific thought of the twentieth century hardly redounds to the credit of science.""

.... donchathink?
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

This really is you in a nutshell - unable to actually understand the position put against you in an argument.
Where have I said Dawkins is being scientific?
Where have I said Dawkins is being unscientific?

My point, that you missed, was that I had not said anything about whether Dawkins is scientific or not.

You make assumptions, and you argue against those assumptions.
You create straw men, LG.

So no, I did not say that I think Dawkins is mostly outside of science.
I have not said anything on the matter.

Please do not make stuff up.

If you've admitted that cosmogony is unscientific I don't really see how you can go from there to saying that dawkins is scientific ..... moreso if you hold having recourse to falsifiable data as marking the divide

:shrug:

 

[Balerion]

Is LG really comparing Dawkins' science to eugenics?

Why are people like this allowed to be here? I thought this sort of thing wasn't allowed, like the way that equating atheism and Stalinism isn't allowed.

 

[Sarkus]

needless to say cosmogonists would have a field day with you ...

Not really. They make assumptions of the origin and then study the evolution. The evolutionary aspect is falsifiable... if it doesn't match our current situation then the assumptions are wrong.
But with regard the origins, this is unfalsifiable, and unscientific. They work merely with possible models.
I'm not sure any cosmogonists would disagree.
Feel free to provide something to support your argument, though.

I never said abiogenesis wasn't a science...

So you think it is a science?
If so, why do you think one needs to sound "whimsical" when saying so?

 

[lightgigantic]

Is LG really comparing Dawkins' science to eugenics?

Why are people like this allowed to be here? I thought this sort of thing wasn't allowed, like the way that equating atheism and Stalinism isn't allowed.

Is JDawg jumping in with statements without having actually read anything of the contributions? I thought this sort of thing wasn't allow- ... oh, wait up ... he does that all the time .....
... as you were.
:shrug:

 

[Sarkus]

If you've admitted that cosmogony is unscientific I don't really see how you can go from there to saying that dawkins is scientific

FFS!! Dawkins says a lot of things!!!
Why do you insist on labelling a person as being "scientific" or "unscientific"??

Dawkins can be both scientific AND unscientific, depending on what he says and the arguments he uses.
The same can be said of anyone.

The question is not whether a person is scientific or not, but on whether their position and arguments are scientific.

 

[Balerion]

Is JDawg jumping in with statements without having actually read anything of the contributions? I thought this sort of thing wasn't allow- ... oh, wait up ... he does that all the time .....
... as you were.
:shrug:

I've read your "contributions," Shrugmeister. Shall I remind you of what you said?

As I understand it, Dawkins is pretty scientific

yeah ... just like eugenics circa 1900

Care to amend your comment, :shrug

 

[lightgigantic]

Not really. They make assumptions of the origin and then study the evolution. The evolutionary aspect is falsifiable... if it doesn't match our current situation then the assumptions are wrong.
But with regard the origins, this is unfalsifiable, and unscientific. They work merely with possible models.
I'm not sure any cosmogonists would disagree.
Feel free to provide something to support your argument, though.

and the difference is that in abiogenesis they make an assumption about the origin and study the evolution and ... hey, fancy that, its exactly the same.
:shrug:

So you think it is a science?

sure
just like abiogenesis and eugenics

If so, why do you think one needs to sound "whimsical" when saying so?

Because they are all packed to the hilt with theories and ideas about natural processes that would enable them. You don't buy yourself any elbow space simply by saying that abiogenesis has a broader epistemological framework since at the end of the say, the amount of falsifiable evidence for either cosmogony or abiogenesis is identical.
:shrug:

 

[Balerion]

FFS!! Dawkins says a lot of things!!!
Why do you insist on labelling a person as being "scientific" or "unscientific"??

Dawkins can be both scientific AND unscientific, depending on what he says and the arguments he uses.
The same can be said of anyone.

The question is not whether a person is scientific or not, but on whether their position and arguments are scientific.

He does this because he has zero understanding of science. You think you'd bump into LG at university? C'mon.

 

[lightgigantic]

I've read your "contributions," Shrugmeister. Shall I remind you of what you said?

I guess we could see if you could fit your other foot in your mouth also ....

Care to amend your comment, :shrug

Is eugenics an aspect of science?
Does Dawkins present aspects of science?

Was Eugenics "pretty scientific" circa 1900?
Is Dawkins "pretty scientific"?

Think hard about your answer

 

[lightgigantic]

FFS!! Dawkins says a lot of things!!!
Why do you insist on labelling a person as being "scientific" or "unscientific"??

Dawkins can be both scientific AND unscientific, depending on what he says and the arguments he uses.
The same can be said of anyone.

The question is not whether a person is scientific or not, but on whether their position and arguments are scientific.

hence "the scientific principles of eugenics in the 19th and 20th centuries (it wasn't just isolated to nazi germany) were just as scientific as about 75% of whatever dawkins has published "

:shrug:

 

[Balerion]

Is eugenics an aspect of science?

No. It's a pseudoscience along the lines of Intelligent Design.

Does Dawkins present aspects of science?

What does that even mean? How does one "present aspects of science?" If you're asking if Richard Dawkins is a scientist, the answer is yes, he's an evolutionary biologist.

Was Eugenics "pretty scientific" circa 1900?

No. Just like ID, people figured out what it really was right away. It was popular, but popularity is irrelevant.

Is Dawkins "pretty scientific"?

Again, what does that mean? Are you asking if he does good science? If so, the answer is yes. His books on biology and evolution are classics.

Think hard about your answer

You should start thinking harder about the questions, kiddo.

 

[lightgigantic]

No. It's a pseudoscience along the lines of Intelligent Design.

On the contrary, I think its clear you just wedged another size 10 in your gob


Eugenics most definitely was an applied science, not a pseudoscience, especially circa 1900. The only way one could think otherwise is by rewriting vast tracts of modern history ... but hey, don't let that stop you.

What does that even mean? How does one "present aspects of science?" If you're asking if Richard Dawkins is a scientist, the answer is yes, he's an evolutionary biologist.

you don't know what an aspect of science is or you don't know what a presentation is?

No. Just like ID, people figured out what it really was right away. It was popular, but popularity is irrelevant.

So they figured it all out and it was still popular with them .... that's right now, all the way to the ankle

Again, what does that mean? Are you asking if he does good science? If so, the answer is yes. His books on biology and evolution are classics.

I guess I must be asking good questions if you are being so trite ... since you already attempted an answer with the same grammatical terms in the question before it ... BTW I'm pretty sure that if you took Dawkins minus his atheist blathering you would be down to a publishing rate of less than 25%
:shrug:

You should start thinking harder about the questions, kiddo.

Oh but what do you mean by "harder"? How on earth can one make sense of that ... I mean what does it mean? <- see, its quite easy to pretend to be stupid, isn't it?

:shrug:

 

[wynn]

Can someone please sum up what the core contention here is, on either side?
Thanks.

 

[Balerion]

On the contrary, I think its clear you just wedged another size 10 in your gob

Sorry, son, I wear size 13.

Eugenics most definitely was an applied science, not a pseudoscience, especially circa 1900. The only way one could think otherwise is by rewriting vast tracts of modern history ... but hey, don't let that stop you.

Pseu-do-sci-ence [soo-do-sahy-uhns
noun
any of various methods, theories, or systems, as astrology, psychokinesis, or clairvoyance, considered as having no scientific basis.​

Eugenics is an ideology under the guise of science, and has no scientific basis.

But I'm curious, what "vast tracts" of modern history must I rewrite? That's a conveniently vague statement.

you don't know what an aspect of science is or you don't know what a presentation is?

What an odd way to phrase a question. Why wouldn't you simply have asked if Dawkins was a scientist? Is forming a coherent sentence that difficult for you, or were you simply trying to phrase it in a way that you thought might make you appear smarter?

So they figured it all out and it was still popular with them .... that's right now, all the way to the ankle

No, people who understood that it was unscientific and ideological opposed it from the very beginning. It wasn't scientifically sound even at the time. Yes, you could convince an idiot (just as you can today with ID) with its jargon, but it was junk even at the time.

Now, I'm guessing here, but I think you're trying to say that Dawkins' work in the field of evolutionary biology is akin to Davenport's "work" in eugenics, correct? The mistake you make here is assuming that eugenics was the best theory we could form at the time with the knowledge we had. That clearly is not true. It was then as it is now a pseudoscience. It's popularity among its proponents is irrelevant.

I guess I must be asking good questions if you are being so trite ... since you already attempted an answer with the same grammatical terms in the question before it ...

I must have thwarted your plot, because you asked two very purposed questions in an attempt to lead me down a certain path, yet you've abandoned the effort and resorted to non-sequiturs such as commenting on my triteness and the way I ask questions.

Well done, me!

BTW I'm pretty sure that if you took Dawkins minus his atheist blathering you would be down to a publishing rate of less than 25%
:shrug:

BTW, I'm pretty sure you've never read a page of Dawkins' writing.

Oh but what do you mean by "harder"? How on earth can one make sense of that ... I mean what does it mean? <- see, its quite easy to pretend to be stupid, isn't it?

:shrug:

The difference is that you're not pretending.

 

[James R]

wynn has been banned for 1 week for trolling.

---

Continuing to post lies after having been informed that the information is untrue amounts to trolling. This is in reference to the assertion that Hitler was only an anti-Semite because he wanted to please Stalin.

 

[Syzygys]

Really? I have been informing just about half of Sciforums that they have been wrong, but we don't ban half of the users....

Would you ban a theist for stating his/her religion's tenets??? He/she would be obviously wrong, but we don't ban them...

Anyhow, just to stay on topic:

Can someone please sum up what the core contention here is, on either side?

I am not following the LG side of the debate, but what I have been trying to say has been this:

In history there will always be losers or winners. Often times the losers completely disappear from the stage of history. We can cry or be happy about it, a moralistic approach is completely irrelevant and meaningless. Everything what humans do I considere natural, thus eliminating each other certainly is, no matter in what form it happens. The strongest survives, the weakest certainly doesn't write history. Just look at whom we consider our biggest heros. Not to mention one's hero is another's evil man (Genghis Khan for one, he is worshiped in Mongolia today) Killing each other is just in our nature, humans are the only spieces who kill for something else than food or territory. We are killers, get used to it. We don't have to like it, nevertheless it is a fact. Now once we get used to this fact, we might even see the upside of it, that generally the better/stronger wins, thus overall, this process has an evolutionary effect on the whole population, improving the gene pool. Just like in the animal world...

Generally watching the Game of Thrones one could learn a lot about the world. For one, who is right? Who should be on the throne? Well, nobody is right and the strongest should be the king.

Here is a quote, the king's mother teaching the would be princess about life:

"“Look at me,” he fumes to Sansa through wine-stained lips after retreating from the battlefield. “Stannis is a killer. The Lannisters are killers. Your father was a killer. Your brother is a killer. Your sons will be killers someday. The world was built by killers. So you’d better get used to looking at them.”

 

[James R]

If this was an honest error, then why did wynn make no effort to find out the truth, or to support his/her assertions? And then to call somebody a Nazi for daring to correct him/her?