An interesting general article on math in science

Ricky · 2010-06-20 16:21:24

You can't be asking me to bolster your arguments. I don't believe there is much you can say. Your position here is indefensible. Kronecker's comments are persecution. What else can I say?

What are you talking about? I gave you what I felt was his reason, and you rejected it without criticism. We can't go anywhere until you provide a reason for your rejection.

You are not listening. The comments in the documentary precede the comments in the video you show. They are again, damage control. Dawkins can say whatever he can get people to believe. The fact is, that is not what he said in the documentary.

Because it's not in the documentary you saw, it's not evidence? You won't believe a man when he tells you what he believes? Or is it only Richrad Dawkins? Whatever, you previously stated "He believes in some form of Intelligent design, just not God," which has been shown to be completely unevidenced. All he said is that it was possible.

Darwinism is about life here. We have no reason to believe research in the Galapagos holds on some other planet 400 light years from here. We know nothing of any life other than here. The chemistry may be different, certainly the biology will be very different. Directed panspermia represents a severe threat to modern biology's present viewpoint.

You got your order all backwards. If we start with the assumption that life was planted here from a different planet, then it would be expected that the two forms of life would be very similar. How does panspermia represent a threat to biology at all?

Nope, I didn't leave it out, I said I don't agree. Tailoring arguments is for politicians not scientists. Anyway, he didn't tailor his arguments, he had none. Again when confronted on Intelligent panspermia he was speechless. I have made this point several times. I don't know how to put this, he was whupped real good!

I have explained in numerous ways, given examples, and all you do is say "no". That isn't an argument. Scientists tailor what they say all the time. That you don't accept this is simply a denial of reality. To imagine a scientist talking at a conference the same way they do at a public lecture is quite funny, when you think about it.

Darwins thesis is not clear. It is a theory! Not a mathematical theorem. In 50 years very likely biologists will be pushing something else.

Darwin's thesis, his point, in the quote was that human sacrifice is a good thing. You think that isn't clear from the two paragraphs?

I told you Dawkin's video leaves out important parts of their exchange

What important points?

What supporting evidence can I give. I have offered the documentary. It contains the names, the quotes, the scientists both for and against. At the beginning I said watch it yourself. you may decide that I am wrong. That is fine, that is excellent. A person exercising their free will. Not opining what Richard Dawkins has to say.

Alright, let's try this: Imagine I go to watch the documentary. How will I know when I've reached the point where you think there is a quote mine?

Ricky · 2010-06-20 16:42:38

Bobby, please answer me this:

Consider the quote we've been talking about from Expelled, taken from the Origins by Darwin. Do you believe Ben Stein's quote is a reasonable approximation to the idea that Darwin was trying to convey in the quote?

bobbym · 2010-06-20 17:02:57

Hi;

What are you talking about? I gave you what I felt was his reason, and you rejected it without criticism. We can't go anywhere until you provide a reason for your rejection.

If you can explain how being called a corruptor of children is not persecution. You seem to think that it is scientific debate, I do not. We are at an impasse. By the way I have been criticizing it.

That is quite absurd. Because it's not in the documentary you saw, it's not evidence?

I saw the documentary, you did not. So how is it you are sure it is not in there? This I cannot understand. You mean you have been told it is not in there. Perhaps it is not there. Perhaps you will just see Richard in a battle, that was not rigged for him to win.

then it would be expected that the two forms of life would be very similar. How does panspermia represent a threat to biology at all?

Expected? Not necessarily. The environment probably has a lot to do with how life developed. Intelligent or directed panspermia? If some alien species millions of years more advanced than us ( Dawkins said this ) went around seeding our world as well as millions of others, how could we know how those aliens started. How life began there? Maybe it didn't evolve as Darwin says on their planet. After all Darwin was never on their planet. His conclusions come from the Galapagos. Why would it apply in their world? That is how it is a threat, Darwin talks about the origin of the species on earth. If directed panspermia is true his theory would know longer apply here or anywhere else.

I have explained in numerous ways, given examples, and all you do is say "no".

You have explained it the same way several times. I have stated I don't agree with that. You are using it as a copout to explain Richards debacle. He was asked the same questions he has been asked and spouted off about hundreds of times. He flubbed the answers. He was only speaking to one person. Does he need to prepare for that? Again I say. I do not think he was confused by Ben Stein or at least he shouldn't have been. I have provided examples, you have dismissed them. If I ask a mathematician to differentiate x^2 does he need to prepare? Does his staff have to draft something up? Does he have to tailor it? No, it was not underhanded to ask him questions in two fields he claims he is an expert in, God and Darwinism. He is obviously not.

Alright, let's try this: Imagine I go to watch the documentary. How will I know when I've reached the point where you think there is a quote mine?

I can't answer that Rick. You might not know. You might say at the end that bobbym is a real butthead. But you will have watched it, something Richard and company seem not to want?! You will have formed your own opinion. And I will hear it.

Supposing yes, you find out I am mistaken and none of this had been said. You would still pick up the names of the persecuted. You will listen to some veiled threats made by Dawkins supporters. You will see Richard attempt to pull the wool over Ben's eyes with some faulty reasoning. You will hear about scientists who are mocking American science. You will get to see the ghoul who inhabits a former nazi gas chamber. All this is worth the price of 2 hours of your time.

You once told me at the end of another thread that you were not interested in discussing with people who were not passionate about the subject. I have heard Richard Dawkins viewpoints. I relayed to you in another thread my opinion for his viewpoints. Nothing has changed since then. I think I know why he says what he says. Now, why do you?

Consider the quote we've been talking about from Expelled, taken from the Origins by Darwin. Do you believe Ben Stein's quote is a reasonable approximation to the idea that Darwin was trying to convey in the quote?

I don't know Rick. I hope not. I have said that it has been accused of being plus minus arguing. I don't necessarily agree. There is some attempt to relate him to some really awful things. I don't wish to discuss that. I just hope they are wrong.

If you remember I said both of them used some dirty tactics in their exchange. This only proves they are human and make mistakes. That is what makes the documentary interesting. This was Richards first time in front of a hostile crowd of one. I am not interested in Richards feelings. Perhaps if Darwin's position was being explained by someone more fluent in its language there would be less controversy.

Ricky · 2010-06-27 13:48:13

Cantor:

If you can explain how being called a corruptor of children is not persecution. You seem to think that it is scientific debate, I do not. We are at an impasse. By the way I have been criticizing it.

I think you are being hyperbolic to call it persecution. You may criticize Kronecker's reasons, you may fully disagree with them, but they still are his reasons. You asked me what his reason was and I responded with what I felt was a likely meaning to his words. I never said I agreed with this reason.

The current question is not if Kronecker was justified, but if it was persecution. In my mind, an entire group must participate in order for persecution to take place, on the order of a government in scale.

It is necessary to weed out bad ideas, and in the process of doing this, it is also necessary to heavily criticize and even poke fun at good ideas. It is a loss to humanity that Cantor could not bear the criticism, one which I regret dearly. But I still would not change the system because ideas still need to be rigorously tested before they are accepted. Yes I agree Kronecker's comments were not deserved, but Kronecker's head was still in the right place.

Expelled:

You continue this game of making claims, then me asking/stating something, and you telling me I would know the answer if I watched Expelled. If this continues, here is the last I have to say:

From every credible source I have read, the film is dishonest. I was well versed in Creationism/ID before the film came out, and from everything I've heard it rehashed the same old Creationist arguments. Further, I'm not interested in what the documentary says, only what it can back up with evidence. And this evidence, while it can be sourced within the documentary, must be found outside the documentary. Therefore, the only parts that I find any interest in whatsoever can be found outside the documentary, so I don't need to watch it. Moreover, Stein is a dreadful speaker and I don't think I want to waste my precious one-disk-at-a-time Netflix on this awful piece of dreck.

If you have any evidence of any one of the numerous claims you've made external to the documentary itself, I am greatly interested. Thus far you have yet to produce anything other than "go watch the movie".

Expected? Not necessarily. The environment probably has a lot to do with how life developed. Intelligent or directed panspermia? If some alien species millions of years more advanced than us ( Dawkins said this ) went around seeding our world as well as millions of others, how could we know how those aliens started. How life began there? Maybe it didn't evolve as Darwin says on their planet. After all Darwin was never on their planet. His conclusions come from the Galapagos. Why would it apply in their world? That is how it is a threat, Darwin talks about the origin of the species on earth. If directed panspermia is true his theory would know longer apply here or anywhere else.

Yes, life could be vastly different. But once the basis for life is decided (RNA/DNA in our case), it seems to be quite hard to change. This is evidenced by the fact that every lifeform on earth has RNA/DNA. With this evidence, I would make the hypothesis that if panspermia occurred, then whatever alien species cause it also used RNA/DNA. Of course this is weakly evidenced, and relies entirely on observations made terrestrially. But that is the best evidence I've got. If you have something better, please, show it. But your statement "that might not be the case because we don't know" doesn't hold much weight, mostly because I've already stated that we don't really know.

[Richard Dawkins] flubbed the answers.

Please give me an example of a question and answer that he "flubbed".

If I ask a mathematician to differentiate x^2 does he.. have to tailor [his response]?

If you're asking him this question in front of an audience of high school dropouts whom he wants to understand the answer, then you're darn right he needs to tailor it.

I don't wish to discuss that. I just hope they are wrong.

Then you lack the pursuit of truth that I so desire in a person I am arguing with.

If you remember I said both of them used some dirty tactics in their exchange. This only proves they are human and make mistakes.

Depends what you mean by "dirty". If they intended to trick or deceive, then error be damned, I want nothing to do with someone who willfully deceives.

This was Richards first time in front of a hostile crowd of one.

Not even almost.

bobbym · 2010-06-27 14:59:39

To sum up about Georg Cantor, I don't agree that persecution must be an entire government. Persecution need only come from someone in authority. In the case of Kronecker and Poincare,Brouwer and Wittengenstein this represented the bulk of the mathematical community.

Ricky wrote:

The current question is not if Kronecker was justified, but if it was persecution. In my mind, an entire group must participate in order for persecution to take place, on the order of a government in scale.

That is your opinion and I do not share it. I don't think in terms of 2,17 or 321 as comprising persecution. Kronecker is an excellent case of persecution by one man.

Ricky wrote:

Yes I agree Kronecker's comments were not deserved, but Kronecker's head was still in the right place.

Again, I don't agree, Kronecker, sounds crazier than Cantor.

From every credible source I have read, the film is dishonest.

This is the point of all of the problems, they are not credible sources, they are biased sources. I don't see how we can discuss the documentary if only I have seen it. Certainly you are not going to get a an unbiased viewpoint on it by listening to me. Although so far, I have been honest in presenting my recollection of it, in the future I might employ a little Dawkinism and tailor my comments. After all you are tempting me to sort of bend reality a little.

Ricky wrote:

Further, I'm not interested in what the documentary says, only what it can back up with evidence.

I can understand this, I wasn't interested in what an over the hill zoologist had to say either. I see your point. But Richard is not the only one talking.

Ricky wrote:

Moreover, Stein is a dreadful speaker and I don't think I want to waste my precious one-disk-at-a-time Netflix on this awful piece of dreck.

I dated a girl who taught me some yiddish and german, so I know what drek or dreck is. Unfortunately, it does not apply here. I already wrote what you will get for your time:

bobbym wrote:

You would still pick up the names of the persecuted. You will listen to some veiled threats made by Dawkins supporters. You will see Richard attempt to pull the wool over Ben's eyes with some faulty reasoning. You will hear about scientists who are mocking American science. You will get to see the ghoul who inhabits a former nazi gas chamber.

The documentary supplies you with all the answers to the questions you have asked me. It presents scientists from both sides, most who are much more capable then either Stein or Dawkins. In short it is interesting.

I understand about netflix too. I would be saving mine for Knight and Day, rather than listening to Richard stutter.

Ricky wrote:

so I don't need to watch it.

This is a personal matter, you must decide that for yourself. I can remember saying that too.

Ricky wrote:

If you have any evidence of any one of the numerous claims you've made external to the documentary itself, I am greatly interested. Thus far you have yet to produce anything other than "go watch the movie".

That's not fair, I have done the best I can to answer your questions. 2 years of chemistry, 1 year of biochemistry and bacteriology ( most of which I have forgotten), does not make me an expert. I am not qualified, to speak about theology or darwinism. The experts are speaking in the documentary. Why not listen to them? If you don't wish too, you can't blame me, I am out of my element.

Ricky wrote:

Of course this is weakly evidenced, and relies entirely on observations made terrestrially. But that is the best evidence I've got.

Yes, the evidence is weak. I am not going to say all life is like here. One is not a pattern.

Ricky wrote:

If you have something better, please, show it

Interesting, you want me to show you proof of life that does not fit the narrow viewpoint of modern biology?

You know where I live and can guess where I have been. Here we are much less skeptical of all the things you and I have spoken about. Still, it is not common to have physical evidence of Draconians, Reticulans, Werewolves, Skinwalkers or Vampires. Or to have strange metals or anti matter reactors in our cellars. How could we, Dawkins and Sagan said those things are impossible...

Ricky wrote:

Please give me an example of a question and answer that he "flubbed".

Now, that is argumentative. I have shown it 5 times at least, even from the video you provided. He flubs because he chokes. I even showed you where. No comment to a question, hoping it will go away is not an answer.

Ricky wrote:

If you're asking him this question in front of an audience of high school dropouts whom he wants to understand the answer, then you're darn right he needs to tailor it.

Maybe, But any mathematician or college student should be able to say something other than "Duh."

Ricky wrote:

Then you lack the pursuit of truth that I so desire in a person I am arguing with.

The pursuit of truth, you must meet me half way. You must pursue it too.
I don't know Darwin personally. When we are talking about a man's character I would need more info, I would need to know him. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. That is the most I can do.

Ricky wrote:

Not even almost.

It seemed like the first time. Yes, he has spoken hundreds of times on subjects he knows next to nothing about. He lectures on alternative medicine ( he is not a doctor or a chemist ). He lectures on God ( he is not a theologian or even a minister ). Heck, I know more scripture than he does. You don't see me going on tour.

It is you who have carefully avoided my questions. I admire your skill. But I have not forgotten them. I asked you why you feel the way you do on this subject. I think I know why Richard feels the way he does. Why are you preconditioned to think it is not worth your time?

50 people who all dress the same, are all the same gender, the same race and all live in the same town, say that person B is a slimeball. Now B lives next door to me. I could easily go over and talk to him and see for myself, only take about 2 hours. Should I talk to him or should I believe the 50 people? Never once thinking those might not be 50 different viewpoints, they might be the same viewpoint 50 times. What should I do here?

Ricky · 2010-06-29 13:54:04

This is the point of all of the problems, they are not credible sources, they are biased sources. I don't see how we can discuss the documentary if only I have seen it. Certainly you are not going to get a an unbiased viewpoint on it by listening to me.

You feel delightfully comfortable in assuming you exactly what my "biased sources" are, don't you?

Talking about the documentary doesn't really interest me. You claimed that scientists were fired because they believed in ID. If all you can hold up is "Expelled" and claim this is evidence, then your claim is dismissed simply because a documentary (of this sort) is not evidence. It may present evidence, but it is not evidence itself.

If you have any evidence of any one of the numerous claims you've made external to the documentary itself, I am greatly interested. Thus far you have yet to produce anything other than "go watch the movie".
That's not fair, I have done the best I can to answer your questions. 2 years of chemistry, 1 year of biochemistry and bacteriology ( most of which I have forgotten), does not make me an expert. I am not qualified, to speak about theology or darwinism. The experts are speaking in the documentary. Why not listen to them? If you don't wish too, you can't blame me, I am out my element.

If you don't know, then you shouldn't make statements (claims) about them which make it appear that you do. I've only asked you to provide evidence for things you have stated as fact. How is this not fair?

Yes, the evidence is weak. I am not going to say all life is like here. One is not a pattern.

So far we have a (weak) reason for the lifeforms being the same, and absolutely no reason for them being different. So I, as a betting man, am going to be if there was a panspermia event, then it would be more likely for the lifeforms to be similar. Do you find this unreasonable?

You know where I live and can guess where I have been. Here we are much less skeptical of all the things you and I have spoken about. Still, it is not common to have physical evidence of Draconians, Reticulans, Werewolves, Skinwalkers or Vampires. Or to have strange metals or anti matter reactors in our cellars. How could we, Dawkins and Sagan said those things are impossible...

What?

Please give me an example of a question and answer that he "flubbed".
Now, that is argumentative. I have shown it 5 times at least, even from the video you provided. He flubs because he chokes. I even showed you where. No comment to a question, hoping it will go away is not an answer.

I see Dawkins stating that panspermia is a possible example for "a designer", and Ben Stein lying about Dawkins' beliefs regarding panspermia. I do not see any "flub".

The pursuit of truth, you must meet me half way. You must pursue it too. I don't know Darwin personally. When we are talking about a man's character I would need more info, I would need to know him. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. That is the most I can do.

Let me give you a similar hypothetical situation. You've just heard that Bush decapitated five bound and gagged people shortly after he graduated college. You are given no supporting evidence for the assertion. Do you really say "Well, I don't really know the man, can't say either way, but I'll give Bush the benefit of the doubt."

No, you dismiss the claim because it has no evidence.

It is you who have carefully avoided my questions. I admire your skill. But I have not forgotten them. I asked you why you feel the way you do on this subject. I think I know why Richard feels the way he does. Why are you preconditioned to think it is not worth your time?

Where have you asked me that before? Please let me know what post it's in, because I can't find it.

As for the question, what is "this subject"? What is "it" that I think is not worth my time?

50 people who all dress the same, are all the same gender, the same race and all live in the same town, say that person B is a slimeball. Now B lives next door to me. I could easily go over and talk to him and see for myself, only take about 2 hours. Should I talk to him or should I believe the 50 people? Never once thinking those might not be 50 different viewpoints, they might be the same viewpoint 50 times. What should I do here?

If I understand the point you're trying to get at, and I have no idea that I do, then your analogy is seriously flawed. It's not someone saying, "That guy is awful". It's someone saying, "That guy is awful! He decapitated my cat, look, here is my cat's body! And look! Over there, he's still holding my cat's head!"

Ricky · 2010-06-29 14:22:37

Bobby, did you hear about this saga? I suppose I was wrong before, at least one good thing did come from Expelled. But that's only cause I'm a fan of delicious irony.

bobbym · 2010-06-29 15:55:40

Ricky wrote:

You feel delightfully comfortable in assuming you exactly what my "biased sources" are, don't you?

Tough question to answer. Since you are asking me, you must think I am an expert. Okay, here goes, absolutely not or maybe absolutely true. Richard is biased, Sagan is biased, Schermer is biased, Stein is biased, I am biased and so are you. Being human means sometimes taking delight in someone else's problems. Ever laugh when Moe hits Curly on the head with a cast iron frying pan? Sure you did.

Ricky wrote:

If all you can hold up is "Expelled" and claim this is evidence, then your claim is dismissed simply because a documentary (of this sort) is not evidence.

Ricky wrote:

Who has lost a job?

As documentaries go it is just as good as any other. I also never met or spoke to any christians that were fed to lions, so I should dismiss that? I never met Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar. You want first hand evidence for everything? The documentary gives the names of the people fired, just what you asked for.

Ricky wrote:

If you don't know, then you shouldn't make statements (claims) about them which make it appear that you do. I've only asked you to provide evidence for things you have stated as fact. How is this not fair?

No,no,no, a total misinterpretation of the statement. You do not want to see the documentary. The guys in the documentary are supposed experts. I am not. Asking me questions and they saying I have not answered them is to be expected. I cannot answer. I have said I don't want to answer. I have said I am not qualified. The documentary is the best example of both sides I have ever seen. You don't want to see both sides, although that is your right, it is unscientific and biased.

If you don't know, then you shouldn't make statements (claims) about them which make it appear that you do.

I haven't made any statements, you are the one asking me about the documentary. Dawkins and his cronies are the experts, I am only copying what they said. If you do not believe live interviews and claim that is not evidence, then I can present nothing more.

Ricky wrote:

So far we have a (weak) reason for the lifeforms being the same, and absolutely no reason for them being different. So I, as a betting man, am going to be if there was a panspermia event, then it would be more likely for the lifeforms to be similar. Do you find this unreasonable?

Unfortunately, as a betting man I do. Here is what you are doing
You have the sequence 2, now guess the next number. It could be anything. You have an example of one. There is not even an intelligent guess about what comes next.

What?

It was a joke, but you really don't know what I am talking about...?

I see Dawkins stating that panspermia is a possible example for "a designer", and Ben Stein lying about Dawkins' beliefs regarding panspermia. I do not see any "flub".

You did not see any flub?. I have told you you saw a cut version of the exchange that took place in the documentary. It is a an example of quote mining. Great work by Richard's staff. The version you saw is incomplete. It was prepared by Richard's stooges. I have made this point many times. In this case you are arguing with an expert. I have seen the documentary and Richard's version. You have only seen Richard's version. Now, I ask you, who is presumed to be able to judge more accurately? I have seen both , you haven't. How on earth can you say I am wrong?

Ricky wrote:

Where have you asked me that before? Please let me know what post it's in, because I can't find it.

bobbym wrote:

You once told me at the end of another thread that you were not interested in discussing with people who were not passionate about the subject. I have heard Richard Dawkins viewpoints. I relayed to you in another thread my opinion for his viewpoints. Nothing has changed since then. I think I know why he says what he says. Now, why do you?

Post #28, you are not reading my stuff. I even asked you the same question in the Purpose of life thread, also no reply.

Ricky wrote:

If I understand the point you're trying to get at, and I have no idea that I do, then your analogy is seriously flawed. It's not someone saying, "That guy is awful". It's someone saying, "That guy is awful! He decapitated my cat, look, here is my cat's body! And look! Over there, he's still holding my cat's head!"

It is not like that at all, please reread my example, there is no evidence just a lot of opinion.
You have been going and on about opposition to the video, citing how much their is. But when the opposition all comes from the same group of people, the same cronies, then it is seriously tainted. It is biased. That is what the 50 people story is saying. You are getting the same opinion cited 50 times. It is one or two persons opinions given to the rest to say. Please don't say it is not possible, you do not want to hear the other side, neither do they. But you are right, there is a serious flaw in my example, since you are quoting Richard's opinion make that 51.

Ricky wrote:

Talking about the documentary doesn't really interest me.

You say you do not want to talk about the documentary?! But now you are asking another question about it. A question about the premiere.

Yes I have heard about that story, I do not know what P.Z. had done to be thrown out. He says nothing, but since you do not believe that the people who were fired did nothing, why do you believe him? That was Minneapolis, they might not have agreed with some of his shenanigans.

I have been asked to leave lectures, casinos, parks, symposiums and meetings by security people, and so have lots of other people. Security people are really strange and often do not reflect managements desires. This "saga" is total garbage and has nothing to do with Expelled.

Everytime, I mention a point, you skip over it and go back to Richard's cut comments about Expelled. I have said what the the heck does an aged zoologist really know about Darwinism or genetics? Why does he write books about God? He is not a theologian or a minister. Why does he bash alternative medicine, he is not a doctor or a chemist. Why should I or you listen to him?

I have said he came off badly in his exchanges with Ben Stein. Duh is not an acceptable reponse to a question, unless you are Peter Griffith. You say he was unprepared, I say he knows little about any of those fields. He can only speak in front of crowds of buddies. Why is he not replaced by someone better able to speak? Someone quicker, someone who actually knows what he is talking about.

Ricky · 2010-07-06 12:26:29

Tough question to answer. Since you are asking me, you must think I am an expert. Okay, here goes, absolutely not or maybe absolutely true. Richard is biased, Sagan is biased, Schermer is biased, Stein is biased, I am biased and so are you. Being human means sometimes taking delight in someone else's problems.

When you describe a refrigerator as being cold, it is understood that you mean "colder than most others". When you describe a person as being biased, it is again understood that you mean "more biased than most". Yes, of course everyone has a bias. Is that all you can offer? Vacuous statements?

The guys in the documentary are supposed experts. I am not. Asking me questions and they saying I have not answered them is to be expected. I cannot answer. I have said I don't want to answer. I have said I am not qualified.

Yet you put forth the claims, stating them as fact, and then say you aren't qualified. So is this a withdraw of those claims?

I haven't made any statements...

- Richard Dawkins is a believer in intelligent design
- In the old days when creationism held sway people were fired or jailed for disagreeing.
- All qoutes are quote mining.
- Most people believe that persecution doesn't exist in science but won't take the chance.
- The Dawkin's camp is doing a lot of quote mining themselves.

If those aren't claims, what are they?

You have the sequence 2, now guess the next number. It could be anything. You have an example of one. There is not even an intelligent guess about what comes next.

Under the assumption a human made the sequence and that it is a semi-popular pattern, you can eliminate a whole lot of numbers.

I think I know why [Dawkins] says what he says. Now, why do you?

What are you referring to? I've said a lot of things.

You say you do not want to talk about the documentary?! But now you are asking another question about it. A question about the premiere.

The documentary I do not care for. The claims and verifiable facts within the documentary are a different story.

This "saga" is total garbage and has nothing to do with Expelled.

Nothing?

I have said what the the heck does an aged zoologist really know about Darwinism or genetics?

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist.

Why does he write books about God?

Because he seems to have ideas that people are interested in reading about.

Why does he bash alternative medicine, he is not a doctor or a chemist.

One does not need to be an expert to see that my invisible pink unicorn is a fake. Nor does one need to be an expert to see that the only thing water can cure is dehydration (homeopathy).

Why is he not replaced by someone better able to speak?

You're the first person I've run into who thinks he is not an excellent speaker.

bobbym · 2010-07-06 13:08:01

Ricky wrote:

When you describe a refrigerator as being cold, it is understood that you mean "colder than most others". When you describe a person as being biased, it is again understood that you mean "more biased than most". Yes, of course everyone has a bias. Is that all you can offer? Vacuous statements?

No, none of those things are understood. That is not what I meant by biased. I am offering nothing. What can I offer? The documentary, not my opinion, is the best example of the documentary!

Ricky wrote:

Yet you put forth the claims, stating them as fact, and then say you are not qualified. So is this a withdraw of those claims?

In verbal exchanges it is understood that it is the speaker's opinion. You do not have to precede every statement with, "in my opinion."

Ricky wrote:

If those are not claims, what are they?

Opinions, nothing more. As are Richards and yours.

Ricky wrote:

Under the assumption a human made the sequence and that it is a semi-popular pattern, you can eliminate a whole lot of numbers.

Sophistry, humans had nothing to do with creation. So we cannot eliminate anything. Darwinism may be false.

What are you referring to? I've said a lot of things.

Yes, you have made many claims. You have called the documentary dreck without seeing it. You called Ben dishonest, taking another's word for it.

Ricky wrote:

The documentary I do not care for.

You have not and will not see it. How can you know? This is bias. Are you in favor of suppressing alternate opinions? Richard and Schermer are. They even suggest punishment for alternative viewpoints, are you in favor of that?

Ricky wrote:

Nothing?

Again, nothing. We do not know why he was asked to leave. He may have been doing something illegal. I do not know. Who knows about security guards? Richard was not asked to leave...

Ricky wrote:

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist.

Here is his bio:

Wiki wrote:

Dawkins attended Oundle School Church of England[17] school from 1954 to 1959. He studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen, graduating in 1962. He continued as a research student under Tinbergen's supervision at the University of Oxford, receiving his M.A. and D.Phil. degrees in 1966, while staying as a research assistant for another year.[16] Tinbergen was a pioneer in the study of animal behaviour, particularly the questions of instinct, learning and choice.[21] Dawkins' research in this period concerned models of animal decision making.[22]
From 1967 to 1969, Dawkins was an assistant professor of zoology at the University of California, Berkeley. During this period, the students and faculty at UC Berkeley were largely opposed to the ongoing Vietnam War, and Dawkins became heavily involved in the anti-war demonstrations and activities.[23] He returned to the University of Oxford in 1970 taking a position as a lecturer, and in 1990, as a reader in zoology. In 1995, he was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science in the University of Oxford, a position that had been endowed by Charles Simonyi with the express intention that the holder "be expected to make important contributions to the public understanding of some scientific field".[24] Since 1970, he has been a fellow of New College, Oxford.[25]

I have him as a zoologist. Are you sure that is not an honorary title?

Wiki wrote:

as a result of the rapid growth of molecular and cell biology, many universities have split (or aggregated) their biology departments into molecular and cell biology-style departments and ecology and evolutionary biology-style departments (which often have subsumed older departments in paleontology, zoology and the like).

Looks like they changed the name from zoology to the much more impressive sounding evolutionary biologist.

Ricky wrote:

Because he seems to have ideas that people are interested in reading about.

So that makes him an expert? I asked you why I should believe, not like him.

Ricky wrote:

One does not need to be an expert to see that my invisible pink unicorn is a fake.

Sure, anyone can speak about anything. Who is going to listen unless you are an expert.

Ricky wrote:

Nor does one need to be an expert to see that the only thing water can cure is dehydration (homeopathy).

Did you get that from Richard? From one of his books? Homeopathy is not only water. Many people have been helped by it, including the royal family. Richard is not a doctor, I am not and neither are you. I do not think anyone being helped cares what Richard has got to say. Some doctors use homeopathy, many do not. Mine did. Richard does not mention that, does he? Maybe he does not know that, maybe he does... More quote mining? You know to bash a field you have to know a heck of a lot more than to condone it.

To relieve dehydration you require large doses of water. That is not homeopathy. Alternative medicine is not only homeopathy. It is everything that has been chased out of this country and England by people like Richard. Richard I understand, has never tried alternative medicine at least not yet.

Ricky wrote:

You're the first person I've run into who thinks he is not an excellent speaker.

Now that is vague. How many people have you run into and have questioned about his skill as a speaker ( 5 , 10 , 1000)? Is that a good sample? Have you ever heard him speak, live?

You are truly the first person I have run into that thinks he is a good speaker. You know both of these statements could be true. To me it just means both statements are examples of non random and small sample sizes.

Richard Dawkins wrote:

Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Yes! Especially before meeting up with someone like Ben Stein! If you plan to lecture against them you should know both sides thoroughly. Same thing about speaking out against religion.

Math Is Fun Forum

#26 2010-06-20 16:21:24

Re: An interesting general article on math in science

#27 2010-06-20 16:42:38

Re: An interesting general article on math in science

#28 2010-06-20 17:02:57

Re: An interesting general article on math in science

#29 2010-06-27 13:48:13

Re: An interesting general article on math in science

#30 2010-06-27 14:59:39

Re: An interesting general article on math in science

#31 2010-06-29 13:54:04

Re: An interesting general article on math in science

#32 2010-06-29 14:22:37

Re: An interesting general article on math in science

#33 2010-06-29 15:55:40

Re: An interesting general article on math in science

#34 2010-07-06 12:26:29

Re: An interesting general article on math in science

#35 2010-07-06 13:08:01

Re: An interesting general article on math in science

Board footer