One more time with feeling

Post #134,433 by orion 1/9/04 12:02:38 AM Reply	One more time with feeling Maybe a better web site would be: [link\|http://www.tsoup.org/id1.php\|http://www.tsoup.org/id1.php] Information is processed in the mind and patterns are recognized, applied, and created without our scarcely even thinking about it. When we see a pattern, though, we do not always attribute the results to the work of an intelligent agent. We see constellations in the sky, but if we scrambled all the stars in the heavens into a new configuration, we would find new constellations. If we came upon a table, with Scrabble tiles strewn all over it in no apparent order, we would likely say that they were dumped on the table and chance or natural forces determined their placement. But, if there was a sentence spelled out, such as "pick the kids up from soccer", you might conclude that your spouse was trying to tell you something. Rather than random forces controlling the placement of the tiles, an intelligent agent created information. A quick definition of information is necessary to carry this further. Feel free to read the rest if you must. [link\|http://www.tsoup.org/id2.php\|http://www.tsoup.org/id2.php] Ernst Haeckel was a 19th Century German embryologist upon whom Darwin relied heavily for support of his theory of evolution. Haeckel composed a series of drawings supposedly depicting the development of embryos from From left to right: fish, salamander, tortoise, chick, hog, calf, rabbit, and human. many different species. His drawings showed that embryonic development was similar for these species during early and middle stages, becoming different only when the embryos were in the latter stages of growth. This particular characteristic of embryos is important support for Darwin's theory because they seem to indicate a common single progenitor. He argued that since humans were so similar to other species during early development that their common ancestry was obvious.1 However, for over a century, biologists have known that Haeckel faked his drawings. Wells writes, "vertebrate embryos never look as similiar as [Haeckel] made them out to be."2 During his lifetime, Haeckel was hounded by claims of scientific falsification. Whether or not he deliberately falsified his data was never fully established, but his drawings show embryos that are not only simliar, but too similiar. In addition, his drawings show a highly biased sample of vertebrate forms. First, he shows only five of the seven classes of vertebrates. The mammals he chooses to show (half of his drawings) are all from the same order of placentals. He also selected the salamander to represent amphibians, as opposed to a frog, which is very different developmentally.3 How about that? Can you trust something based on false findings? I certainly cannot. If I believe that ID is invalid and you think it is valid, one of us is wrong. How do we determine which one is wrong? Can I use the above example of the false findings that Darwin based his theory on? Would that help? It's a common tactic used against atheists to accuse them of being cold and mechanical, as opposed to the warmth and kindness of religious people. Once again I did not say that, and if you got that impression it was unintentional. If you keep putting words in my mouth, this discussion will end. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #134,445 by JayMehaffey 1/9/04 2:32:54 AM Reply	Re: One more time with feeling How about that? Can you trust something based on false findings? I certainly cannot. The whole Haeckel thing is a red herring. The underlying information that is revelent to Evolutionary theory is correct, despite Haeckel's exaggeration of features in the drawings to make them conform better to his own non-Darwinin theory. The important part, that embryo growth shows various structural forms and changes that reflect evolution is true. This has been extensivly studied since Haeckel's time, and it does support evolution. That Haeckel's drawings still turn up sometimes in school books is a reflection of how bad the process for making them is, not a reflection of Evolutionary theory. If I believe that ID is invalid and you think it is valid, one of us is wrong. How do we determine which one is wrong? Can I use the above example of the false findings that Darwin based his theory on? Would that help? Your on roughly the right track, but as I pointed out above the Haeckel story doesn't hold up. It would also be helpful is you spelled out exactly what you do believe, since it seems to me to be a blending of Creationism and ID. Also, keep in mind that you need to make your case in a positive way, it not enough to show that Evolution is wrong, you have to show that your theory is right. Jay
Post #134,532 by orion 1/9/04 1:20:37 PM Reply	Some more information A book that was written at Amazon: [link\|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801064430/qid=1073672003/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2675730-7780050?v=glance&s=books\|http://www.amazon.co...?v=glance&s=books] A review of it: Doubts about Darwin is a very objective book about the Intelligent Design Movement (ID). This work, a revision of the author's Ph.D. thesis completed at the University of South Florida, has much information that is not commonly known, such as many of the forerunners of the ID movement were atheists or agnostics. For example, the role of such people as Murray Eden (professor emeritus at MIT) and other ID forerunners such as Professor Michael Denton (p. 24) are discussed. Many excellent quotes are included that show the dogmatic attitude of the Darwinists, such as Gould's statement to Professor Johnson calling him (falsely) a creationist and then emotionally proclaiming "I've got to stop" your work, obviously by any means he can (p. 96). This is hardly the attitude of an objective scientist intent on searching for the truth about origins. Woodward, a college professor himself, documents the many unethical attacks by the so called science and university establishment against those who dare to question Darwin. Rarely are Darwin doubters given an opportunity to respond to attacks against them in the journals that published the attacks and, thus, few people have an objective understanding of the movement. Reading sections of this book at times made me ashamed to be a scientist. Woodward does note that many scientists have been objective and fair critics, even supportive of ID, such as University of Chicago Professor David Raup (I was a fan of his work long before I learned about his positive contribution's to ID). The book also tries to answer questions such as, why more and more people are having serious doubts about Darwinism, who they are, and why the ID movement is growing so fast. The motive for the growth of ID is clearly major "doubts about Darwinism" and the book covers these in some detail. Now what is needed is an objective book on ID by a professional historian. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #134,592 by JayMehaffey 1/9/04 4:23:35 PM Reply	What was the point of that? Your pointing to a review of a book on Amazon as evidence? The book you are pointing to is not even a book of ID theory, it is a history of the ID movement by a follower of the movement. Jay
Post #134,714 by orion 1/10/04 1:05:16 PM Reply	The point was to explain where ID came from. To dispell the myth that it was created by Christians to get Creationism back in schools. If Atheists and Agnostics worked on the theory, then that myth gets busted. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #134,782 by JayMehaffey 1/10/04 10:21:24 PM Reply	Re: The point was Not being able to read the book, I can't see if there is any real connection there or not. There is nothing in what I have seen about the book that says if covers the poltical background of the movement or not. Just reading the review I found one outright falsehood already. Many excellent quotes are included that show the dogmatic attitude of the Darwinists, such as Gould's statement to Professor Johnson calling him (falsely) a creationist and then emotionally proclaiming "I've got to stop" your work, obviously by any means he can (p. 96). Phillip Johnson, the effective founder of the ID movement and the person that coined the ID name is a Creationist, by any defintion of the word. He believes that the Christian God created the universe and guided the creation of the species on earth. To try and claim he is not is absurd. As for the "I've got to stop" quote, the second part is pure slander, designed to imply that Gould would lie or cheat when there is no reason to think that Gould considered either. As a pro-evolution scientist and an activist in the area of increasing the quality of school biology education, Gould did want to stop creationists like Johnson from getting their material in school books. It didn't help that Gould disliked Johnson for misquoting him in Johnson's books. A good deconstruction of Johnson's first book can be found here [link\|http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/johnson.html\|TalkDesign.org]. I can't find any discussion of the Doubts About Darwin book itself, being too new to have been really critiqued. Jay
Post #134,855 by orion 1/11/04 2:37:38 PM Reply	Apparently you missed part of that review quote Here let me show it to you: Reviewer: A reader from Middle America Doubts about Darwin is a very objective book about the Intelligent Design Movement (ID). This work, a revision of the author's Ph.D. thesis completed at the University of South Florida, has much information that is not commonly known, such as many of the forerunners of the ID movement were atheists or agnostics. For example, the role of such people as Murray Eden (professor emeritus at MIT) and other ID forerunners such as Professor Michael Denton (p. 24) are discussed. Many excellent quotes are included that show the dogmatic attitude of the Darwinists, such as Gould's statement to Professor Johnson calling him (falsely) a creationist and then emotionally proclaiming "I've got to stop" your work, obviously by any means he can (p. 96). This is hardly the attitude of an objective scientist intent on searching for the truth about origins. Obviously you read the part about forerunners of the ID movement being atheists or agnostics. Maybe you forgot it and focused on the "I've got to stop your work" part? Only way to know for sure is to read that book. Woodward, a college professor himself, documents the many unethical attacks by the so called science and university establishment against those who dare to question Darwin. Rarely are Darwin doubters given an opportunity to respond to attacks against them in the journals that published the attacks and, thus, few people have an objective understanding of the movement. Reading sections of this book at times made me ashamed to be a scientist. Woodward does note that many scientists have been objective and fair critics, even supportive of ID, such as University of Chicago Professor David Raup (I was a fan of his work long before I learned about his positive contribution's to ID). The book also tries to answer questions such as, why more and more people are having serious doubts about Darwinism, who they are, and why the ID movement is growing so fast. The motive for the growth of ID is clearly major "doubts about Darwinism" and the book covers these in some detail. Now what is needed is an objective book on ID by a professional historian. It documents the many attacks on the ID movement. Again I guess you need to read the book to learn what they are. If I wasn't so poor, I'd pay the $13.99USD to buy a copy and read it. I'd like to learn more myself. See what parts I can follow and understand. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #134,920 by ben_tilly 1/12/04 12:21:32 AM Reply	"Were atheists" ne "are atheists" My experience is that people who have changed belief systems tend to be far more aggressive about it than those who haven't. When I spent time on atheist newsgroups, the ones who had grown up fundamentalist christian were by far the most radical. Looking the other way, you don't have to look farther than C.S. Lewis to see what a Christian who used to be an atheist acts like. People with a memory of IWETHEY history can just remember Ben Kosse and Nick Petreley to see examples each way of this, with each having made the opposite transition in beliefs. Therefore the revelation that key members of the ID movement were once atheists doesn't surprise me. I'd have expected that. Doubly so since acceptance of a personally acceptable compromise between existing scientific evidence and their developing religious faith could well have been a key part of converting for them. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #135,075 by JayMehaffey 1/12/04 3:19:08 PM Reply	I saw that Obviously you read the part about forerunners of the ID movement being atheists or agnostics. I saw that part, I just didn't read that much into it. Forerunners covers a lot of ground beyond those that actually founded the ID movement. Jay
Post #134,496 by ben_tilly 1/9/04 11:16:38 AM Reply	Ah, yes First the obligatory bad statistics link. Where we demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between likelyhood in a directed stochastic process and likelyhood in a set of independent coincidences. (Hint: The probability calculations offered aren't even close to being correct.) Second a link asserting that Darwin based his conclusions on misinformation. Now it is true that Ernst Haeckel screwed up, and it's also true that the process for making textbooks sucks - textbook authors crib liberally from each other without enough reference to the literature. Furthermore in Darwin's attempt to pull in as many lines of evidence as he could, he did pull in misinformation. I can also cite examples in Darwin's work of outright mistakes and racist arguments. But the scientific literature works differently than textbook portrayals, and a consensus around Darwinian evolution didn't come from Darwin's evidence. If it was so simple then a consensus could have coalesced around Darwin in his own day and never been challenged. But it was challenged, and Darwin wasn't even alive when the successful resolutions to issues raised finally made the case solid. Of course the scientific community became solidly behind evolution before the famous peppered moth experiments. Which I'd admit had flaws. They showed something, but that something isn't necessarily what the researchers thought that it showed. But no matter how widely quoted the peppered moth experiment is, it never was a key support for the theory of evolution. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #134,525 by orion 1/9/04 1:06:51 PM Reply	It shows an example of how messed up things are in the early process of the theory of evolution. It is as bad as a Police Officer planting evidence to frame someone. It goes beyond making mistakes and using misinformation, it shows that they would do almost anything to support the theory. This in my opinion is not scientific and it is a shame. How do we know the same things didn't happen in the modern version of the theory of evolution? Maybe they are better at hiding mistakes and covering up misinformation? You see the very fact that early on, the theory of evolution was based on false information throws me off of it. I just cannot trust something that we were lied to about. While it may be a theory, it certainly has a shady past. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #134,582 by ben_tilly 1/9/04 3:57:38 PM Reply	You need some perspective First of all people strongly tend to see what they expect to see. For instance in Galileo's research on pendulums he saw a relationship between the length of the pendulum and the period of the swing (true). He also thought that he saw that the period of the swing didn't vary no matter how far you drew it back (false). It is true that he didn't have good ways of tracking time. It is true that the period changes very little over a pretty wide range. But the simple test of taking 2 identical pendulums, and drawing one back much farther than the other, would show him his mistake. Perhaps he didn't run that test. Perhaps he ran it while holding the pendulum and unconcious movements of his arm compensated. Perhaps he saw small differences and put them down to experimental error. I don't know. But Galileo expected to find universal periodicities, and Galileo found more periodicities than were actually there. This kind of systematic bias towards seeing what you expect to is a difficult problem to deal with. And science has been dealing with it for a very long time. There are methods and techniques which can reduce the odds of making this error, and which will lead to it being caught if it is made. They aren't perfect - nothing designed and done by fallible humans can be - but they are pretty good. One of them is the ongoing external peer review and challenge process. Another is the tradition in science of constantly trying to challenge your own theories, not support them. And not inconsequential is the simple fact that every scientist knows stories of scientists who got it wrong, and there is pressure not to become another one of them. Furthermore I should not that it is rare to find that systematic mistakes happen through intentional dishonesty. It happens through how our basic perception process works. There is a striking experiment demonstrating the percepction issue that Kuhn quoted in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. People were asked to call out cards as they were flashed by. They had to give the color, name and suit. Unbeknownst to the subjects, among the cards were some "impossible" ones. Like a black jack of hearts. When the cards went by fast people would have no problem calling them out - as something that they weren't. So one person might call out a red jack of hearts, another a black jack of spades. As you slowed down, people continued to get it wrong until finally you did it slowly enough that most were able to see the card for what it was. Once people realized that there were impossible cards, they had no problem identifying them, even at speed. I should say most people. There were some subjects who could not see the cards clearly no matter how much time you gave them. As one woman said after 15 seconds of studying the card, "I can't believe my eyes. I can't tell you if this card is red or black or a heart or a spade. I feel like I'm going crazy!" This isn't dishonesty, it is an optical illusion created by having strong expectations. Everyone is prey to it, not just scientists. The problem for scientists is how to proceed despite the problem. What does this have to do with Ernst Haeckel? Well Haeckel believed that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". That is, the development process records the history of your ancestry in a compressed form. This expectation lead him to misperceive what he saw, and so he drew bad slides. He becomes a morality story. What does this have to do with Charles Darwin? Well Darwin wanted evidence that animals have common ancestors. At that point a commonly cited piece of evidence was Haeckel's observations, so Darwin cited it without sufficient research. Oops. However that argument was not a major part of Darwin's book, which was mostly devoted to how our current variety of forms of life could result from descent with modification. Indeed in any book of that size, you have to expect to see errors. The work, taken as a whole, was solid, and in the end was confirmed, so Darwin became a success story. If you are curious for more, you can actually read a fairly early edition of [link\|http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/\|The Origin of Species] for yourself. Read it for yourself. See how long it takes you to find Haeckel's observations. But as you do so, don't miss chapter 6, where Darwin lists all of the objections that he thought of to his own theory. In later editions he also added objections that were suggested to him by readers. It is integral to the scientific process that you be honest to the best of your abilities, and Darwin did that. Of course he has mistakes. He included other people's work which had errors. He guessed wrong (for instance in chapter 6 he is right that swimbladders and lungs are related, but he is wrong about which way evolution went - swimbladders are modified lungs, not vice versa). He had incomplete information. He believed wrong theories about how inheritance works. He was prey to assumptions of his day (one possible problem included in later editions was about the dilution of superior traits if a single superior specimen bred with inferior ones - Darwin accepted without comment that whites were clearly superior to blacks). And so on. But Darwin does his best. And despite all the flaws that we can see from nearly 150 years of improved perspective, Darwin's best was still very good. And of course, as I've pointed out and you don't seem to appreciate, the history isn't that Darwin came out with his book and everyone said, "Oh, so that is the new scientific theory, better burn the old stuff." No. What happened instead was that people piled on. They found problems with missing gaps. Others filled them in. Kelvin showed that the Earth couldn't been around for long enough. Later Kelvin was proven wrong. (An illustration of good science at work, Kelvin included in possible objections to his work the possibility of sources of heat then unknown to science - which turned out to be the case.) Geneticists demonstrated that species seemed to have a natural form that was always easiest to breed them to. The role of genetic diversity in adaption was figured out, and the genetics results were reinterpreted. And so on. 50 years after Darwin's seminal work, descent with modification was still not solidly accepted. After 60 years of the scientific process grinding away, it was. And the general outlines have not been seriously challenged since. (Although our understanding of modes and means have been.) Of course you aren't interested in this. You are interested in supporting the conclusion that you already have. So Darwin accidentally includes one line of evidence from someone whose results are suspect, and Darwin is a deliberate liar, who is planting evidence to support his theory. All that I can say to that is that we often ascribe our own motives to others... Regards, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #134,588 by deSitter 1/9/04 4:12:45 PM Reply	excellent +10 Kepler of course tried to match the planets to the Platonic solids. This did not prevent him from eventually getting it right. That is the hardest thing to do - to quit on a pet idea. Darwin's achievement is all the more remarkable because at the time, there wasn't even a good understanding of atoms, much less DNA. There was no mechanism for inheritance, and Darwin probably did not even understand the significance of Mendel (no one did at first), if indeed he knew about Mendel's work at all. (Mendel's initial work on hybrids was published in 1865 - same year as Maxwell :) This I think is the mark of real genius - the ability to grasp intuitively something that only much later finds a satisfactory explanation. In Darwin's case it was 90 years in the future. Darwin always reminds me of Kepler. -drl
Post #134,687 by Ashton 1/10/04 7:10:52 AM Reply	And that is a decently compact one. (The lazy reader may not investigate stochastic methods re random events, nor recognize that very often, er non-probabilistic sampling is apt to become intermixed either subtly or nefariously -- as in the strongly-human tendency to weight.. intuition? or just a one's own lengthy career experience, etc.) WTF - good science is Hard. We live in a Soft, lazy time. What was that Econ quote re rising expectations in a * prosperous society VS diminished presence of the capable? * or faux-prosperous, like this one. Prosperous for a diminishing few.. Nice work; pearls before .. but others read too. Ashton
Post #134,713 by orion 1/10/04 1:02:36 PM Reply	More suspect evidence This one appeared in a copy of Scientific American. Claimed to prove that things can be created randomly: THE COMPUTER PROGRAM IN APPENDIX E IN "UPON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS" BY RICHARD HARDISON 10 REM 1984 R. HARDISON 11 PRINT "RANDOMIZING ALPHABET" 12 PRINT "WRITE HAMLET, KEEPING" 13 PRINT "SUCCESSES." 14 PRINT :; REM N-COUNTER: # OF TRIALS 15 REM T=COUNTER:REUSE "TO BE" 16 PRINT "SUBROUTINE TO 17 PRINT "RANDOMIZE AND SELECT" 18 PRINT "LETTER" 30 N = 0 40 FOR G = 1 TO 10 50 T = 0 60 GOTO 80 70 X = INT (26 * RND (1)) + 1: RETURN 80 GOSUB 70 90 N = N + 1 100 IF X = 20 THEN PRINT "T": IF X = 20 THEN GOTO 120 110 GOTO 60 120 N = N + 1 130 GOSUB 70 140 IF X = 15 THEN PRINT "O": IF X = 15 THEN PRINT : IF X = 15 THEN GOTO 160 150 GOTO 120 160 N = N + 1 170 GOSUB 70 180 IF X = 2 THEN PRINT "B": IF X = 2 THEN GOTO 200 190 GOTO 160 200 N = N + 1 210 GOSUB 70 220 IF X = 5 THEN PRINT "E": IF X = 5 THEN PRINT : IF X = 5 THEN GOTO 240 230 GOTO 200 240 T = T + 1 250 IF T = 2 THEN GOTO 460 260 N = N + 1 270 GOSUB 70 280 IF X = 15 THEN PRINT "O": IF X = 15 THEN GOTO 300 290 GOTO 260 300 N = N + 1 310 GOSUB 70 320 IF X = 18 THEN PRINT "R": IF X = 18 THEN GOTO 340 330 GOTO 300 340 N = N + 1 350 GOSUB 70 360 IF X = 14 THEN PRINT "N": IF X = 14 THEN GOTO 380 370 GOTO 340 380 N = N + 1 390 GOSUB 70 400 IF X = 15 THEN PRINT "O": IF X = 15 THEN GOTO 420 410 GOTO 380 420 N = N + 1 430 GOSUB 70 440 IF X = 20 THEN PRINT "T": IF X = 20 THEN PRINT : IF X = 20 THEN GOTO 60 450 GOTO 420 460 PRINT "N=";N;" KEYS PRESSED TO WRITE 'TO BE OR NOT TO BE'" 470 PRINT "FOR";G;" RUN(S) OF PROGRAM" 480 PRINT 490 NEXT G 500 END 510 REM IF THE PROGRAM WERE 511 REM WRITTEN TO INCLUDE 512 REM PUNCTUATION MARKS ETC. 513 REM THE PROGRAM WOULD 514 REM TAKE LONGER, BUT WOULD 515 REM STILL NOT BE PROHIBI- 516 REM TIVE 517 PRINT 518 PRINT "WITH 3000 RUNS, THE MEAN" 519 PRINT "# of trials=333" 520 PRINT "THE MEAN TIME REQUIRED" 521 PRINT "WAS .14 MINUTES TO PRINT" 522 PRINT "TOBEORNOTTOBE" ------------------------------- You can plainly see that instead of randomly creating letters, it goes through many loops of creating random numbers, and if the right number is randomly chosen then the next letter of the phrase "TOBEORNOTTOBE" is selected. If not, the loop continues generating random numbers. It does not start over the whole selection but gosubs to the start where the random number is selected and returns to the calling point, it continues on to the last step if the wrong number is selected. It does not start over from the start if the wrong number is found. Obviously a flawed experiment, also not a true random number generator but as close as MS BASIC can get to it. Eventually the right number will be selected and the loop moves on to the next part. Also not even close to how complex the genetic code is. Perhaps, it is, as you said, a mistake, full of errors, flawed. Yet it still does not explain why people see it as a fact or true evidence supporting the random creation of life. Yes people make mistakes, make errors, base things on flawed observations. Trying to pass off said things as actual facts or true statements is just plain wrong. Nothing I have read on the theory of evolution has convinced me yet that it is anything more than just a theory. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #134,728 by ben_tilly 1/10/04 2:22:39 PM Reply	Talk about missing the point The purpose of that program isn't to provide evidence for or against evolution. It is to give people some intuition for how much more likely things are to happen in a stochastic process than with independent events. What averaged 333 trials there would take an average of about 2_481_152_873_203_736_576 trials if you just kept on grabbing sets of 13 random letters until you came up with TOBEORNOTTOBE. (The theoretical arithmetic average for the program that you ran is 338. The theoretical mean is slightly lower because of an asymmetry of the tails, but I don't care enough to work it out exactly.) Of course the real-life stochastic processes of interest to abiogenesis and evolution bear no resemblance to that simple program. However the probability arguments that you hear from both Creationists and ID folks always are the ones appropriate to independent events, which wrongly results in astoundingly large numbers. If either Creationists or ID folks tried to work like scientists push themselves to, then they would acknowledge that they don't know what correlations exist, and they would admit that such correlations could drastically change the figures that they quote. But they don't do so because, unlike science, their goal is to convince people of a position that they believe, and not to uncover reality, whether or not it matches current preconceptions. Incidentally the intent of that little program backfired with you because you both didn't learn the statistical point that it was meant to illustrate, and because you mistakenly thought that it was seriously intended as proof that evolution has happened. So you missed the point made, and then got to complain about the point that wasn't made. Regards, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #134,735 by orion 1/10/04 3:21:22 PM Reply	I was presented it as evidence that evolution is true and that random chance created life. There was no talk of statistics from them. I only showed it that it was not evidence of evolution, and was written wrongly. The people trying to convince me that it is evidence of evulotion are wrong. I didn't take it as serious evidence of evolution, I knew it was flawed. Of course the real-life stochastic processes of interest to abiogenesis and evolution bear no resemblance to that simple program. All the more point that the program in question has no basis in real life. If either Creationists or ID folks tried to work like scientists push themselves to, then they would acknowledge that they don't know what correlations exist, and they would admit that such correlations could drastically change the figures that they quote. But they don't do so because, unlike science, their goal is to convince people of a position that they believe, and not to uncover reality, whether or not it matches current preconceptions. Yet another myth or opinion. You keep talking about facts, yet use things like these that pretend to be facts. I do not see a reason why I should continue this conversation if you keep spouting out myths and opinions like that and try to pass them off as facts. Incidentally the intent of that little program backfired with you because you both didn't learn the statistical point that it was meant to illustrate, and because you mistakenly thought that it was seriously intended as proof that evolution has happened. So you missed the point made, and then got to complain about the point that wasn't made. I only approached it from the evidence of evolution angle that it was presented as. I understand that there is a statistic and probability aspect to it, but this was not covered by those who presented the program to me. I was told it was evidence, and I went to prove that it is not evidence. Wether there was a point to the program besides being evidence is a moot issue. I do not recall saying that there is no point to the program, only that it is not evidence of evolution randomly creating life. So please stop putting words in my mouth/posts. Another annoying habit I wish you'd quit doing. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #134,743 by ben_tilly 1/10/04 4:03:38 PM Reply	What is that about motes vs beams? If you want to talk about annoying habits, why not work on the following ones of yours as well? You consistently ignore virtually anything that you don't want to respond to. At least acknowledging it would be nice. You keep on bringing up strawmen whose only apparent purpose is to provide you with something that you can shoot down. You are far too quick to dismiss things as just myth or opinion. For instance go [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=134582\|here] and verify that I didn't just claim that scientists try to bring up possible flaws in their reasoning, but I explained why and gave concrete examples (Darwin and Kelvin). I even included a link to Darwin's original book and pointed out that there is an entire chapter whose purpose is to enumerate major possible flaws in Darwin's thinking. It would also be nice if you would fairly acknowledge points where you were unfair. Allow me to demonstrate what that could look like. I acknowledge that I don't know how the program was presented to you. I know what it is supposed to show, and I know how that integrates into the theory of evolution. But the misunderstanding in your presentation of it well have been a misunderstanding of the person presenting it to you, and not your misunderstanding of what they said. It was unfair for me to suggest otherwise. Incidentally I mean that apology. I was unfair. I can excuse my behaviour in various ways, Regards, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #134,761 by orion 1/10/04 5:36:48 PM Reply	The truth is I do not have the education to grasp advanced concepts in Biology and Genetics that are of the college level. I am not ignoring them, I am unable to verify them as facts because I am not qualified to do so. How can I acknowledge something I cannot understand or verfiy? I am also not qualfied to prove or disprove either ID or Evolution, so asking me to do so is unfair. I try, but my education in the subjects involved are limited. I did not realize I was using Strawmen. I thought I was coming up with examples/evidence that I found flaws in. If I am using Strawmen, I apologize for that. The myth and opinions were not about Darwinism, but related to the comments that "If either Creationists or ID folks tried to work like scientists push themselves to...", etc. Can you really prove that, about all ID people including the ID scientists who work just as hard as Evoltionary Scientists? Or are you just using a Strawman yourself? I admit that my behavior and posts may have been unfair. I did not mean to be like that, but I have had a lot on my mind recently. Two deaths in the family, hard workload at college, family and personal issues, etc. I was not thinking as clearly as I should be. I was not reaching my potential. Still I am responsible for my actions, and I accept that responsibility and apologize for it. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #134,790 by ben_tilly 1/11/04 12:51:47 AM Reply	Do you think that your opinion should count or not? I do not have the education to grasp advanced concepts in Biology and Genetics that are of the college level. I am not ignoring them, I am unable to verify them as facts because I am not qualified to do so. How can I acknowledge something I cannot understand or verfiy? I am also not qualfied to prove or disprove either ID or Evolution, so asking me to do so is unfair. I try, but my education in the subjects involved are limited. On the one hand you act as if we should value your opinion, and you go on to discuss your opinion at length. On the other excuse yourself by saying that you can't be expected to grasp the concepts involved, and so can't be expected to respond. If you really think that your opinion is not worth considering, then please stop offering it. If you think that your opinion is, but you feel that you are out of your depth, then please take the points that you don't understand and ask for explanation. Then try to understand the explanations. Lack of education is a curable problem. But only if you are willing to take steps to cure it. I did not realize I was using Strawmen. I thought I was coming up with examples/evidence that I found flaws in. If I am using Strawmen, I apologize for that. A subtle hint. If you are bringing up bad evolutionary arguments and shooting them down, before you know my opinion on them, then you are talking to yourself. Please don't do that. The myth and opinions were not about Darwinism, but related to the comments that "If either Creationists or ID folks tried to work like scientists push themselves to...", etc. Can you really prove that, about all ID people including the ID scientists who work just as hard as Evoltionary Scientists? Or are you just using a Strawman yourself? Oh, that. My comment there addressed commonly presented statistical misarguments. I already explained how scientists in pursuit of science attempt to act, and said how Creationists and ID supporters would act if they tried to meet the same standard. (They would attempt to lay out possible major flaws in their own work as areas of further possible research.) However for me to bring up statistical arguments that are commonly quoted which you hadn't is unfair in exactly the same ways that you were unfair to me. The closest that you came to quoting the kind of commonly wrong statistical reasoning was linking to [link\|http://www.tsoup.org/id1.php\|http://www.tsoup.org/id1.php] which hints at all of the usual statistical misarguments, but leaves actually making the mistakes to the books that they recommend. I'll try not to avoid bringing up common behaviour in standard rebuttals when the behaviour in common hasn't yet come up. My apologies for that. I admit that my behavior and posts may have been unfair. I did not mean to be like that, but I have had a lot on my mind recently. Two deaths in the family, hard workload at college, family and personal issues, etc. I was not thinking as clearly as I should be. I was not reaching my potential. Still I am responsible for my actions, and I accept that responsibility and apologize for it. Thank you for that apology. In case you didn't know, I spent a lot of energy at one point in my life on learning about evolution, and learning about the evolution vs creationism debate. It is frustrating to honestly present that knowledge repeatedly, only to feel casually dismissed. Regards, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #134,849 by orion 1/11/04 2:26:03 PM Reply	Everyone's opinions count everyone has a right to their opinions. I can only grasp some of the concepts. Like the observation of gravity example, I have made my own observations. Again we go back to faith again, you are asking me to trust something I cannot understand or verify. Teachers did this a lot in grade school, high school, etc. I asked questions, got told to shut up and accept it as a fact even if I didn't understand how the fact was verified or how it can be a fact. I was told to trust it, because if I did not I would fail the quizes, finals, and papers. This included science classes. When I took Physics, I was not told that Newton's theory of gravity was only an assumption and that it might not work for bodies in motion. I was not told how he found the formulas, only that an apple hit him on the head and gave him the idea that gravity existed. Sort of takes the wonder out of it. Lack of education is a curable problem. But only if you are willing to take steps to cure it. I am, only in Business Management instead of Biology and Genetics. I don't have the time to pursue a field that may not pay a decent salary or allow me to get a job. I may end up as a Taxi Cab driver with a PHD that is useless in the current job market. I have priorities in my life, so I have to carefully choose what to study. If I had won the lottery, of course I would be able to study those fields, maybe go to a decent college somewhere. Study with Stephen Hawking and learn Physics from him, etc. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #134,916 by jake123 1/11/04 11:36:18 PM Reply	Re: Everyone's opinions count and everyone has a right to their opinion are not the same thing. Tell, do Osama bin Laden's opinions count? How about Stalin? Hitler? Does his opinion on the right way to deal with religious minorities count? Some people's opinions are quite valueless. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #134,917 by deSitter 1/11/04 11:47:07 PM Reply	Re: Everyone's opinions count Put it this way: everyone has a right to an opinion, but a moral duty to have a reasonable one. -drl
Post #134,993 by orion 1/12/04 11:36:08 AM 1/12/04 11:59:25 AM Reply	Here in the US even people with bad opinions like that get to keep them. The problem comes when they break a law, or do something bad, then it is no longer an opinion but an action. A bad action can be punished and is wrong. Otherwise send out the Thought Police to send people into camps to get their opinions changed. Which in itself is wrong to do as well. So are you saying I have no rights to my own opinions and I must be forced to change them? Do you compare me to evil people in history because you do not agree with my opinions? My opinions are not bad or evil, or based on meaness or hate. They are just different. Yet somehow this is a crime? If so, all who consider the ID theory will be round up and thrown into jail for having different opinions. Why stop there, why not round up all people who do not believe your religion and throw them into jail? Why not throw back the clock on human rights and throw into jail anyone who does not have the same opinions as you? If you do, you are no better than Hitler or Bin Laden in my opinion and have not learned from History. Edit: people with bad opinions might get monitored by the government, and arrested while committing an action that is bad. But even bad groups are allowed to have cable access TV shows, newsletters, parades, etc to express their views. We have a right to ignore them or disagree with them, but we cannot change their opinions or take away their rights. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"* Edited by orion Jan. 12, 2004, 11:59:25 AM EST Expand All History
Post #135,001 by admin 1/12/04 12:05:40 PM Reply	Not the same. The right to hold an opinion, and having that opinion count, are two different things. You can have any opinion you wish. Just don't expect anyone else to give it the weight you think it should have. Which makes the rest of your post nonsensical. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #135,094 by orion 1/12/04 4:46:52 PM Reply	I only ask for my right to have an opinion without people trying to force me to change it. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #135,095 by admin 1/12/04 4:47:54 PM Reply	That's not what you said. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #135,096 by orion 1/12/04 4:56:42 PM Reply	What did I say? Everyone's opinions count? Maybe I was wrong there. I keep getting forced to chang e mine. Until, I just do not know what my opinions are anymore or what I've said due to the pressure being heaped upon me. So much pressure, like a denial of service attack. Causes me much confusion. Apparently my opinions do not count, otherwise I would not be attacked as much as I am? Maybe I no longer have the right to an opinion any more. Everyone else is right, and I am always 100% wrong. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #135,097 by jake123 1/12/04 4:58:27 PM Reply	MWBC. 'nuff said. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #135,100 by orion 1/12/04 5:07:29 PM Reply	Sorry I did not get that which MWBC did you mean? Google turns up several possibilities. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #135,105 by jake123 1/12/04 5:26:07 PM Reply	Here's the one that I mean: Moan Whine Bitch Complain. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #135,019 by jake123 1/12/04 12:50:44 PM Reply	Re: Here in the US even people with bad opinions like that get to keep them. The problem comes when they break a law, or do something bad, then it is no longer an opinion but an action. A bad action can be punished and is wrong. Otherwise send out the Thought Police to send people into camps to get their opinions changed. Which in itself is wrong to do as well. \r\n\r\nWhat's that got to do with what I said?\r\n\r\n So are you saying I have no rights to my own opinions and I must be forced to change them? Do you compare me to evil people in history because you do not agree with my opinions? My opinions are not bad or evil, or based on meaness or hate. They are just different. Yet somehow this is a crime? If so, all who consider the ID theory will be round up and thrown into jail for having different opinions. Why stop there, why not round up all people who do not believe your religion and throw them into jail? Why not throw back the clock on human rights and throw into jail anyone who does not have the same opinions as you? If you do, you are no better than Hitler or Bin Laden in my opinion and have not learned from History. \r\n\r\nIf you want the answer to your question, read what I said.\r\n\r\nYou are putting words into my mouth, and using it to construct a strawman, followed by a slippery slope argument extrapolating it far beyond anything that I said or even implied. This particular practice of yours is one of the reasons why I hold your opinion's value to be very low.\r\n\r\n Edit: people with bad opinions might get monitored by the government, and arrested while committing an action that is bad. But even bad groups are allowed to have cable access TV shows, newsletters, parades, etc to express their views. We have a right to ignore them or disagree with them, but we cannot change their opinions or take away their rights. \r\n\r\nThat's right. Now point out where I said anyone doesn't have a right to have an opinion. Oh wait, you can't.\r\n\r\nThis particular post of yours really encapsulates why so many people here have such a low opinion of your opinions. --\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \r\n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \r\n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #135,098 by orion 1/12/04 5:01:03 PM 1/12/04 5:05:23 PM Reply	Well I could have been reading it wrong it just seemed to me like the conversation was heading that way. Sorry if I misread you. My point was that if we took away the rights of anyone to have a different opinion or put them in jail for having different opinons, then we are no better than those evil people in history who did the same thing. Sorry you missed my point, and sorry if it turned into a personal attack. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"* Edited by orion Jan. 12, 2004, 05:05:23 PM EST Expand All History
Post #135,104 by jake123 1/12/04 5:24:39 PM Reply	That wasn't your point Your point was that "everyone's opinions count and everyone has a right to an opinion." I was pointing out that the A of the "A and B" was totally false, and offered counter examples of people whose opinion counts for sweet fuck all. I tried to make it easy for you by picking really obvious examples of peope whose opinion doesn't count for dick and asking you if their opinions counted. From that you seemed to think that I wanted you to get thrown in jail for not having correct opinions, when what I was really trying to show you that the simple fact of having an opinion doesn't mean it actually counts for anything in and of itself. The rest of it was just a convenient jumping off point for you to complain some more about how everyone's against you. You know what? Most people aren't against you. Most people don't even know you exist, and of the ones that do, most of them don't care one way or another. Around here, I suspect that most people would be happy to see you get your act together, because you'd probably be a decent enough person to yak with if you did. However, the constant piteous cries of "I don't understand" and "it's not my fault because XYZ are/were against me" is just irritating, and makes the set of people who don't care smaller while making the set of people that Just Wish You'd Go Away larger. Really, it's time for you to stop wallowing in that self-pitying crap. It's just tiresome. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #135,109 by orion 1/12/04 5:39:52 PM Reply	I had many points but I guess you have a low opinion of them? I agree I need to get my act together. No disagreement there. It is not everyone attacking me, just some. Very vocal or postal, and trying to get me to change my opinions because they think they are valueless or wrong. My question is "Who gets to decide what is valueless?" Perhaps one group of people who hate the US, but do not agree to use terrorist actions have value, and another who hate the US and advocate terrorist actions are valueless. Or are both valueless for hating the US? Who decides that? You seem to be an expert on the subject, so you tell me. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #135,114 by jake123 1/12/04 5:47:37 PM Reply	Passive aggressive too --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #135,117 by orion 1/12/04 5:49:59 PM Reply	You got more to add? Or are you done? Or can you stick with the issue and tell me how to tell if one opinion is valueless or not. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #135,119 by jake123 1/12/04 5:55:53 PM Reply	Yes You'll find you'll get a lot further ahead if you don't act like a petulant child. It's not that you don't have it in you... you do. You just need to get off the self-pity trip you fall into all too easily. How to tell if one opinion is valueless... is a subject that one learns throughout one's life. One way to tell is to compare the opinion to reality, and assess how well it accords with it. For example, you seem to say that you believe in creationism. Do you believe that dinosaurs existed? OTOH, you also seem to ascribe to intelligent design. How well does ID fit with reality? Does Occam's Razor allow for ID, when a simpler explanation is available? You say you don't have time to learn about a lot of different subjects... you don't need to learn a subject completely to learn about a subject. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #135,275 by orion 1/13/04 1:22:53 AM Reply	I do agree with you somewhat I do fall into the self-pity trap too easily. I fall for a lot of other traps as well. I do not know Occam's Razor, so I cannot tell you. Creationism skips some details, like the existance of dinosars or even the Earth cooling off. If you go by Genesis, there are two different stories of creation. I believe I have already given my opinions on the book of Genesis creation stories. No need to repeat myself. As for as how ID fits into reality, one may argue that I don't know much about reality. :) Still I have made observations that tell me that there is a certain Inteligent Design about the Universe, things seem to me to be well thought out. So to me, it seems to fit reality. Someone else may think otherwise. I argue that the validity of an opinion is realative to the observer of that opinion. While you and I might agree that Osama Bin Liden's opinions are valueless or wrong, elsewhere in the world they agree with them and see him as a hero. Others might have no comment on that sort of opinion because they do not want to choose sides and get hit by either side. I have recently learned that ID is not the same as Creationism, also that there is an Intelligent Design Creationsm. ID shows that there is an intelligence behind creation, but not who or what that creator is. IDC says not only is there a creator, but that creator is God. Apparently some people confuse Creationism for ID. You say you don't have time to learn about a lot of different subjects... you don't need to learn a subject completely to learn about a subject. Yes but I argue that if you are to learn Genetics, you must first understand Biology, etc. The college level courses have prerequisites which a student must learn first before advancing. Some things like Ethics, Philosophy, Psychology, Calculus, etc need to be learned to make sense out of things. It would be foolish to think that I can bypass 6 years of college classes and learn advanced subjects without knowing the other knowledge I have to learn before understanding the more advanced one. I have a real life example, I taught programmers how to program in Visual BASIC, but I failed to teach them teamwork, ethics, etc. If they had paid attention in PE class or listened to what their sports coaches said, they would have been better team players. If they had followed their religion or paid attention in ethics class, they wouldn't have been so Machiavellian. Plus there are computer classes I had that they aparently didn't have or didn't pay attention to that could have helped them write better qaulity code. My mistake was trying to teach them something they did not have the education to learn, nor the education required to fully use the knowledge the best way they could. I admit a few of them did quite well, but knew what they were supposed to know to fully use the knowledge and work in a team. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #135,121 by hnick 1/12/04 6:05:05 PM Reply	Ok, let me have a whack at it There are opinions and then there are qualified opinions. If we were discussing Visual Basic, your opinion would count for considerably more than mine as I have never actually used VB. I could have the opinion that VB sucks but if we were debating the merits of VB I would have to do better than that. I am allowed to hold that opinion and express it, but it does not matter at all against a qualified opinion of someone who has used it for real. My opinion is not qualified. It is an easy way for me not to have to learn VB. It has no merit in a technical discussion. Similarly in the above debate, you stated that you believe in ID. Nifty. That is your opinion and you are certainly allowed to hold it. Your belief, no matter how fervent, does not equate with a qualified opinion for purposes of debate. It comes down to: "I believe <thing>", response: "Cool, now get out of the way and let those who have studied the issues get on with it". You are allowed your opinion. It's not interesting in the terms of this debate. Hope that helps.
Post #135,529 by orion 1/13/04 7:08:54 PM Reply	Qualified opinions Yes but what if my opinions on VB are biased, how would you know? What if I got some of them wrong, and you do not know enough about it to tell? What if even I do not know that I am wrong? Consider this, I take my car to an automechanic. In my opinion it needs an oil change (over 3000 miles) and a new air filter. In his/her opinion it also needs a new carborator and distributor cap. Now I never had a problem with those parts of the car before, and while I am no automotive expert, something sounds fishy here. A Qualified Expert told me I need a new carborator and distributor cap, which will cost me a lot more money. So what do I do? Believe the qaulified expert or get a second opinion? Being the skeptic that I am, I go to a second garage and a second mechanic and he/she examines the car and says the carborator and distributor cap are fine. So what do I do when Qualified Experts disagree? I go with the one I agree with and think has the best and truest answer. Same deal with ID and Evolution Scientists. :) *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #135,583 by ben_tilly 1/14/04 1:25:20 AM Reply	Shopping for experts Sometimes experts are wrong. Sometimes experts lie. Sometimes the person who you think is an expert, isn't. etc. There are ways to - sometimes - have an idea what is really true. Sometimes you can tell by reputation. Sometimes you know something about what the expert is saying. Sometimes you can compare experts. Sometimes you have to guess. But mostly (admittedly not always) you can find your way with some common sense. Complicating affairs is the common practice of "shopping for the right expert". You go to one expert, and don't get an answer that you like. You go to another expert, and get another answer that you don't like. Eventually you find an expert that gives the answer that you wanted. Can you trust that answer though? This is how Enron selected auditors. This is how drug addicts find doctors who will prescribe whatever they want. This is how PHBs find consultants who will prescribe whatever direction the PHB wants. So how did you do your selection process? You know full well what any standard scientist would say. You know full well what the people here who have learned the most about science have to say. However you found people who sound really authoritative who happen to say something that you want to believe. Obviously they don't generally have the scientific credentials that you might like, but they sound like they have lots of details, and they have some fancy websites. They don't really agree with the scientists, but they claim to be experts and sound convincing about why scientists should agree with them. Voila! You have your expert! And when other people (many of whom obviously have put more energy into this than you have) doubt the quality of your expert, you get to retreat into saying, "Well how can I tell? These experts disagree, and if experts disagree, how can I know who to believe?" Oh, better yet. You call them both Qualified Experts. What are their qualifications? How did you judge that? So yes. You have found people that you can call experts. They give answers that disagree with some standard experts. You obviously don't know enough to choose based on your knowledge, and have decided that you aren't interested in learning for yourself. Nor do you wish to listen to advice from people you know who have put out the energy. Wonderful. You are studying business administration? Let me guess, you are hoping to go into management, and possibly become a PHB? Well you seem to already have the mindset down... Regards, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #135,626 by Ashton 1/14/04 8:13:37 AM Reply	Heh.. I wasn't even gonna touch That one.. I mean - Where would one start? (let alone finish) Brave! (or something) A.
Post #135,663 by orion 1/14/04 10:52:17 AM Reply	Searching for experts So yes. You have found people that you can call experts. They give answers that disagree with some standard experts. You obviously don't know enough to choose based on your knowledge, and have decided that you aren't interested in learning for yourself. Nor do you wish to listen to advice from people you know who have put out the energy. Wonderful. You are studying business administration? Let me guess, you are hoping to go into management, and possibly become a PHB? Well you seem to already have the mindset down... Wrong, I am interested in learning for myself, I just do not have the time or the money to do so. My time is being used to learn something that can benefit my career. Also the people who put out the energy to give advice, how can I tell if they are wrong or not? Using your previous argument about experts, of course. Complicating affairs is the common practice of "shopping for the right expert". You go to one expert, and don't get an answer that you like. You go to another expert, and get another answer that you don't like. Eventually you find an expert that gives the answer that you wanted. Can you trust that answer though? This is how Enron selected auditors. This is how drug addicts find doctors who will prescribe whatever they want. This is how PHBs find consultants who will prescribe whatever direction the PHB wants. About Enron, we studied it in class. President says to VP, there is $25M in it for you if you balance our books in the black. Reward without the risk almost always leads to fraud. VP tells his people what to do to balance the books, takes the $25M and retires to a small island somewhere. President and other executives find out about it, but cover it up and hopes that nobody else finds out about it. That was their mistake, not correcting the problem before it got out of hand. Through common sense and guessing, I was able to suspect that the car did not need a new carborator and distributor cap. That Mechanic #1 may be trying to sell me something I did not need in order to earn more money from me. If I paid the money and took the old parts to 10 different mechanics who all tell me that the parts are still good, then there is a very good chance that Mechanic #1 ripped me off. What are the odds that Mechanic #2 is ripping me off? I am not being told I need to buy something extra, and the opinion seems to be to be of value. What would you do in such a situation? Would you side with Mechanic #1 or Mechanic #2, and why? How did you reach that conclusion? Remember, you are not an automotive expert and have to base your decision on what these two experts say. Often a Manager has to make decisions based on opinions of others. In Classical Management this is true. Too bad I am not learning Classical Management, I am learning Organizational Management. In OM, we empower the employees to make decisions that affect their workplace. So an employee that works in a team of experts will make the decision based on their own certified opinions, the more diverse the team, the better the choices will be to choose from. If I had to choose between ID and Evolution, I would have a team made up of ID Scientists and Evolution Scientists and have them reach a decsion for me using empowerment. This new style of management will hopefully eliminate the PHB with servant leadership and stewardship. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #135,677 by ben_tilly 1/14/04 11:25:42 AM Reply	Any possibility of useful conversation has ended Actually it did a while ago, but a pathetic curiousity about how far you would take this lead me to drag it out to the end. I now sympathize with Ross after his attempts at talking with you. You don't know anything. You don't care to know anything. And you aren't bothered by this. I won't waste any more typing on the subject. Good day, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #135,705 by orion 1/14/04 1:39:53 PM Reply	Obviously you are mistaken Actually it did a while ago, but a pathetic curiousity about how far you would take this lead me to drag it out to the end. So you had motives to egg me on and see how far I would go? I now sympathize with Ross after his attempts at talking with you. You don't know anything. You don't care to know anything. And you aren't bothered by this. I disagree I do know something, not as much as other people might, but I am not without at least some information. I at least have my observations. As far as caring to know anything, I care a lot, but as I explained my energies are focuced on learning a different subject than the one we are currently discussing. If I had infinite time, I would have the time to learn the Sciences behind the theory. Reality and fact is that my time is finite, and I have to manage my time carefully. This is not the same as saying I do not care to learn anything, the fact is that my priorities are currently elsewhere. Now some time in the future after I finish earning my current degree, I may learn something else. I did express a willingness to learn, but I preferred to learn from a college rather than via email or whatever method was proposed. I believe that I did state that if I had won the lottery, my finacial situation would be resolved and that I could afford and have the time to learn Physics from Stephen Hawking, etc. I won't waste any more typing on the subject. Can I hold you to that? Many people have promised me that, but later broke their promise or word. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #135,753 by orion 1/14/04 4:55:15 PM Reply	Let me put it another way why should I bother to learn from people who either ignore my questions, avoid them, or react to me in such a way that upsets me? Will I be able to learn something from this person without going through a hard time and getting stressed out in the process? My answer to that question was a "No" based on replies to my posts on this thread. It is very likely I will ask a question that will cause problems between me and that other person. The question won't be answered, I will not be able to learn, and we will both be wasting our time. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #135,772 by JayMehaffey 1/14/04 6:03:45 PM Reply	Re: Let me put it another way Let me put it another way why should I bother to learn from people who either ignore my questions, avoid them, or react to me in such a way that upsets me? Will I be able to learn something from this person without going through a hard time and getting stressed out in the process? A certain amount of stress is unavoidable, anything that challenges a persons worldview creates mental stress. The technical term is "cognitive dissonance", I found a decent short description here [link\|http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/dissonance.htm\|Learning] Jay
Post #135,784 by Another Scott 1/14/04 7:52:21 PM 1/14/04 8:22:08 PM Reply	Please review the thread from the beginning. why should I bother to learn from people who either ignore my questions, avoid them, or react to me in such a way that upsets me? Let's break it down: why should I bother to learn from people Because it's easier to learn from people than to try to figure out everything by yourself. who either ignore my questions, avoid them or react to me in such a way that upsets me? You can't control how others react. You can only control your own reactions to others. I'd suggest reviewing the thread and trying to understand that several people here were trying to help you. If you do so, you'll see that in [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=133420\|#13420] you made statements about "theories" of Creationism. I and others gave you information on what theories are, what science is, etc. In [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=133581\|#133581] you ask some [link\|http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rhetorical%20question\|rhetorical questions]. You constructed [link\|http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=straw%20man\|straw men] about gold in China (hint - no one ever said there was no gold in China and it's not a [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=134806\|"theory"]. What a theory is was discussed in [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=133458\|#133458]). And so on until in [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=135663\|#135663] you say: Wrong, I am interested in learning for myself, I just do not have the time or the money to do so. My time is being used to learn something that can benefit my career. Also the people who put out the energy to give advice, how can I tell if they are wrong or not? Using your previous argument about experts, of course. In this little snippet once can find evidence that you're not interested in learning things here, you're just interested in [link\|http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sophistry\|sophistry]. People usually find sophistry annoying after a while, and that's likely why Ben eventually got upset with your posts. You should be happy that Ben spent the time to write to you and should have tried to learn from the information he provided. If you can spend the time posting replies here, you can spend the time to read and try to understand what you're responding to. It doesn't take that much more "time or money" to do so. EOT. [edit - clarified the last sentence in the next to last paragraph.] Regards, Scott. Edited by Another Scott Jan. 14, 2004, 08:22:08 PM EST Expand All History
Post #135,832 by rcareaga 1/14/04 11:45:10 PM Reply	Die, Norman! Die! (new thread) Created as new thread #135831 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=135831\|Die, Norman! Die!]
Post #134,918 by ben_tilly 1/12/04 12:10:02 AM Reply	But not equally Suppose that your car breaks. You may have an opinion about what is wrong with it. Your mechanic has a different opinion. Your opinions are not equal, the odds are far more likely that the mechanic is right than you. Why? Because your mechanic has learned more than you about cars, and has a lot of relevant experience. The question of what is wrong with the car is a factual one, there is a right answer, and your mechanic's experience makes him more likely to be able to find it. Or if he doesn't know the answer, he knows how to find it out. Which is why you take your car to him rather than dealing with it yourself. The same is true on any factual question where there is a body of verifiable knowledge built up. Not because anyone matters more or is worth more than anyone else, but because knowledge and experience tells. Now listen to yourself. You are acknowledging that you haven't aquired a solid base of knowledge about science. That means that your opinion on science is less valuable than the opinion of someone who has attempted to aquire that knowledge. Change subject matters and this changes. For instance I know less VB than you do, if we disagree there, then you're probably right. But on science, it is reversed. It is true that this somewhat smacks of being told to take what I say on faith. But there are some key differences between this and what you experienced in school: I'm not grading you. That pressure is off. The odds are very good that I know a lot more than your teachers ever did. If you ask me tough questions, I can give far more detailed answers, and where I don't have answers, I can give you an idea where to look. By your own admission, you are deliberately choosing to learn business management rather than science. Given that, you have little cause to complain about a continued lack of knowledge about science. So if you really want to understand better, you can. But you are choosing not to. Regards, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #134,861 by a6l6e6x 1/11/04 2:57:26 PM Reply	In the words of Dinah Maria Mulock Craik, an English writer (1826-1887): There is no judgment so harsh as those of the erring, the inexperienced and the young. Orion has those categories well covered. Alex There is nothing that can be said by mathematical symbols and relations which cannot also be said by words. The converse, however, is false. Much that can be and is said by words cannot successfully be put into equations, because it is nonsense. -- Clifford Ambrose Truesdell (1919-2000)

Welcome to IWETHEY!