Why is evolution so popular? - Page 12

Why is evolution so popular?

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 12 of 122 FirstFirst ... 210111213142262112 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 1213
Thank Tree1272Thanks

This is a discussion on Why is evolution so popular? within the The Debate Forum forums, part of the Topics of Interest category; Originally Posted by Azrael "Stable?" What, like mentally? You're kidding, right? The only difference that I've noticed between the two ...

  1. #111

    Quote Originally Posted by Azrael View Post
    "Stable?" What, like mentally? You're kidding, right?
    The only difference that I've noticed between the two is that one doesn't tend to believe crazy things.
    That depends entirely on your definition of 'stable things'.
    Even if religion is nonexistent - if God is nonexistent - the belief in religion helps people emotionally.

  2. #112

    Quote Originally Posted by HannibalLecter View Post
    I am a fallibilist, with a slight leaning towards solipsism
    At least you are consciously aware of this...
    But, what is the point in discussing this then?

    Quote Originally Posted by HannibalLecter View Post
    Science amends their beliefs frequently - what is now scientific fact will, next week, be disproven lunacy.
    So, a process of refining hypotheses through vigorous experimentation is more suspect to you than someone who dogmatically claims absolute knowledge?

    Quote Originally Posted by HannibalLecter View Post
    That depends entirely on your definition of 'stable things'.
    Even if religion is nonexistent - if God is nonexistent - the belief in religion helps people emotionally.
    The truth is far better to me than a pleasant fantasy.
    heartturnedtoporcelain thanked this post.

  3. #113

    Quote Originally Posted by Azrael View Post
    At least you are consciously aware of this...
    But, what is the point in discussing this then?


    So, a process of refining hypotheses through vigorous experimentation is more suspect to you than someone who dogmatically claims absolute knowledge?


    The truth is far better to me than a pleasant fantasy.
    But, what is the point in discussing this then?
    In what, discussing my fallibilism? I've tried to avoid it here, but this time it seemed unavoidable.
    Or you mean, why do I bother to participate? I love a good debate.
    The truth is far better to me than a pleasant fantasy.
    Albeit not a satisfying truth.
    So, a process of refining hypotheses through vigorous experimentation is more suspect to you than someone who dogmatically claims absolute knowledge?
    Yet experiments seem to get obsolete when new data emerges, or when something is proven to be/have been a hoax - which is somewhat common.

  4. #114

    Some epistemologists have taken fallibilism to imply skepticism, according to which none of those claims or views are ever well justified or knowledge. In fact, though, it is fallibilist epistemologists (which is to say, the majority of epistemologists) who tend not to be skeptics about the existence of knowledge or justified belief. Generally, those epistemologists see themselves as thinking about knowledge and justification in a comparatively realistic way — by recognizing the fallibilist realities of human cognitive capacities, even while accommodating those fallibilities within a theory that allows perpetually fallible people to have knowledge and justified beliefs.

    Fallibilism[The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

  5. #115

    Quote Originally Posted by HannibalLecter View Post
    I'm only on here 'cause I like to debate.
    And, I am a fallibilist, with a slight leaning towards solipsism They can go on and on and on about all the different ways about what could have happened and yadda yadda yadda, but in the end, I am an agnostic of most of it.
    To say it proves my ignorance is ignorant, seeing as how there have been many a 'scientific hoax' throughout history. Science amends their beliefs frequently - what is now scientific fact will, next week, be disproven lunacy.
    Yet you continue to display your ignorance. That stuff happens in science...um...well...almost never, and of course when it does it's always trumped up by creationists as proof that all of science is wrong. Okay, a couple times some asshole scientist pulls a hoax with the sole motive of self aggrandizement and not to prove anything but themselves right or wrong, but they are always immediately discovered to be frauds.

    If evolution is wrong, that would mean that literally everything ever discovered in the field of biology is a hoax. When scientists do their hoaxes it's always over minor points of quibble that don't effect the overall theory. Do you honestly think Piltdown man's existence or non-existence would change whether or not evolution is true? Do you honestly believe scientists were fooled for even a minute? They weren't. The media sure picked it up, though. That's why we have the peer-review process.

    You show a stunning lack of understanding of what science even is. Amend their beliefs frequently? What the fuck are you talking about? You mean the fact that they have a hypothesis that they're working on and then test it for validity? And if it's shown to be false they make new ones and test those? WOW! Is THAT what science is? That's so dirty and shameless and how can anyone... oh wait that's exactly how we have the modern world? That's the only reason we have medicine and technology?

    The sheer amount of evidence for the Theory of Evolution would make its proven non-existence akin to the plot twist in a mystery novel in which the murderer turned out to be Tom Cruise, who by the way wasn't mentioned in the book until the very last page, when every detail of the crime pointed to the butler (not Tom Cruise's butler, but like the proverbial butler).

    If you want to take a solipsist point of view, that's fine. It's your game. But if nothing is true and everything is up in the air, then why are you so argumentative over science? It can't be known, so don't bother. Let the big boys play that game.
    Psychosmurf thanked this post.

  6. #116

    Quote Originally Posted by HannibalLecter View Post
    In what, discussing my fallibilism? I've tried to avoid it here, but this time it seemed unavoidable.
    Or you mean, why do I bother to participate? I love a good debate.
    I was actually referring to your solipsism.
    This concession makes any sort of debate somewhat meaningless, doesn't it?
    Quote Originally Posted by HannibalLecter View Post
    Albeit not a satisfying truth.
    I find it very satisfying. The scientific understanding of the universe is incredible.
    No Iron Age myth can compare.
    Quote Originally Posted by HannibalLecter View Post
    Yet experiments seem to get obsolete when new data emerges, or when something is proven to be/have been a hoax - which is somewhat common.
    The integral skepticism of science is what makes the exposure of these hoaxes possible.
    I dare you to find a religion with such a powerful self-correcting mechanism.

  7. #117

    Quote Originally Posted by Antagonist View Post
    Yet you continue to display your ignorance. That stuff happens in science...um...well...almost never, and of course when it does it's always trumped up by creationists as proof that all of science is wrong. Okay, a couple times some asshole scientist with the sole motive of self aggrandizement and not to prove anything but themselves right or wrong, but they are always immediately discovered to be frauds.

    If evolution is wrong, that would mean that literally everything ever discovered in the field of biology is a hoax. When scientists do their hoaxes it's always over minor points of quibble that don't effect the overall theory. Do you honestly think Piltdown man's existence or non-existence would change whether or not evolution is true? Do you honestly believe scientists were fooled for even a minute? They weren't. The media sure picked it up, though. That's why we have the peer-review process.

    You show a stunning lack of understanding of what science even is. Amend their beliefs frequently? What the fuck are you talking about? You mean the fact that they have a hypothesis that they're working on and then test it for validity? And if it's shown to be false they make new ones and test those? WOW! Is THAT what science is? That's so dirty and shameless and how can anyone... oh wait that's exactly how we have the modern world? That's the only reason we have medicine and technology?

    The sheer amount of evidence for the Theory of Evolution would make its proven non-existence akin to the plot twist in a mystery novel in which the murderer turned out to be Tom Cruise, who by the way wasn't mentioned in the book until the very last page, when every detail of the crime pointed to the butler (not Tom Cruise's butler, but like the proverbial butler).

    If you want to take a solipsist point of view, that's fine. It's your game. But if nothing is true and everything is up in the air, then why are you so argumentative over science? It can't be known, so don't bother. Let the big boys play that game.
    So now you are generalizing me based on your hatred of religion. Who's the ignorant one?
    Here's a list of internet hoaxes:
    Hoax Busters - the BIG LIST of Internet Hoaxes
    Here is a very incomplete list of hoaxes:
    List of hoaxes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Here's the top ten scientific hoaxes:
    Top 10 Scientific Frauds and Hoaxes - Top 10 Lists | Listverse
    And then there's the paranormal. Nobody who studies the paranormal as intently as I do believes science as whole-heartedly as you or Azrael. Science cannot explain x-ray vision, poltregeists, ghosts, telekinesis, and a lot of other paranormal phenomena. Yet, for some reason, more and more cases are reported, psychical societies are filling up their books of more and more phenomena, and what are scientists saying? IT DOESN'T EXIST!
    amanda32 thanked this post.

  8. #118

    Quote Originally Posted by HannibalLecter View Post
    psychical societies are filling up their books of more and more phenomena, and what are scientists saying?
    Argumentum ad populum...

    The number of people believing something does not make it true or false. Consensus can be useful for a lot of things, yes, but the number of people believing something has no bearing on whether it is actually correct or not.

    So personally I don't care if it is only one scientist in the entire world, as long as what they are showing makes sense. Who they are doesn't matter, their degrees don't matter, the fact that it is a person at all saying anything doesn't matter. The analysis of what is presented itself is all that matters.
    ChaoticHeartLD and heartturnedtoporcelain thanked this post.

  9. #119

    Quote Originally Posted by HannibalLecter View Post
    So now you are generalizing me based on your hatred of religion. Who's the ignorant one?
    Here's a list of internet hoaxes:
    Hoax Busters - the BIG LIST of Internet Hoaxes
    Here is a very incomplete list of hoaxes:
    List of hoaxes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Here's the top ten scientific hoaxes:
    Top 10 Scientific Frauds and Hoaxes - Top 10 Lists | Listverse
    And then there's the paranormal. Nobody who studies the paranormal as intently as I do believes science as whole-heartedly as you or Azrael. Science cannot explain x-ray vision, poltregeists, ghosts, telekinesis, and a lot of other paranormal phenomena. Yet, for some reason, more and more cases are reported, psychical societies are filling up their books of more and more phenomena, and what are scientists saying? IT DOESN'T EXIST!
    People like Michael Shermer debunk this stuff for a living.
    James Randi still has yet to find a psychic willing to perform their magical powers in a lab...and he is offering one million dollars to anyone would can demonstrate these abilities.
    Just because a lot of people believe it doesn't mean there is actually any valid evidence for it.
    A thousand anecdotes are worthless compared to an experiment done in a controlled environment.

  10. #120

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    Argumentum ad populum...

    The number of people believing something does not make it true or false. Consensus can be useful for a lot of things, yes, but the number of people believing something has no bearing on whether it is actually correct or not.

    So personally I don't care if it is only one scientist in the entire world, as long as what they are showing makes sense. Who they are doesn't matter, their degrees don't matter, the fact that it is a person at all saying anything doesn't matter. The analysis of what is presented itself is all that matters.
    Argumentum ad populum to all 'scientific consensus' argument, too!
    Your opinion is the common one, I must say. You've been so brainwashed that science has all the answers that you won't accept the possibility that science is intentionally avoiding an undesirable piece of the proverbial puzzle.
    Charles Fort - he studied science journals and found some 60,000 discrepancies!
    William R. Corliss is, in a way, similar: William R. Corliss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The Fortean Times is a monthly magazine featuring only the most prominent of such cases.
    Every pro-science person I have ever spoken or written to says the same thing: it's all fake, it doesn't matter how many people witness it.
    Yet, when you ask them to at the very least take a look into it, they'll become hostile!
    amanda32 thanked this post.


 

Similar Threads

  1. [ENFP] being so popular yet so alone...
    By samyeaboy in forum ENFP Forum - The Inspirers
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 11-16-2012, 06:57 PM
  2. Why are Atheistic views becoming so popular NOW?
    By Kevinaswell in forum Critical Thinking & Philosophy
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 07-15-2010, 12:25 AM
  3. Popular Websites
    By Korvyna in forum Trends Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-24-2010, 05:12 PM
  4. Disenchantment with Popular Portrayal of NTs?
    By Saboteur in forum NT's Temperament Forum- The Intellects
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-15-2010, 01:02 PM
  5. Tips From an ESTJ: How To Be Popular
    By WickedQueen in forum ESTJ Forum - The Guardians
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 10-09-2009, 06:28 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:51 AM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
2014 PersonalityCafe