Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have no "strong conviction", unless you think pointing out that a claim to fact is not fact is a strong conviction. You have offered many assumptions as to my intent, you have also implied emotional aspects to which are not present, and you now ask for qualification. This is a fallacious reasoning process as it attempts to ignore the argument while it seeks to question the one making the argument. I simply pointed out that such approach is fallacious and irrelevant to the argument. Stick to the main issue, you made a claim to which you rely on authority as its only position of validity and now argue that position as valid to which I asked you to properly support.
Show me one post where I made any assumptions to your intent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
A straw man is taking the other persons argument, changing it so it can be easily defeated. I have not changed your argument, I am simply requiring you to validate it to your claim. You state it is scientifically valid, I asked by what means of the scientific method does it establish this validity. You have failed to answer and are now asking me to prove the opposite of your claim rather than answering to that of the issues with your own position. Sorry, but... that is a fallacious tactic.
Again, you state it is valid, and again, I ask by what means of the scientific method makes it so?
You've done this over and over. You're the one that jumped to the conclusion that I personally made an argument for the conformity of evolutionary biology to the scientific method. If you find one post where I made this claim, I'll concede my argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
No gotcha, just a simple question that you seem unwilling to answer. If asking you to provide some form of validation to your claim is a "giant fallacy", then I assume you also are not familiar with what a logical argument is either as you seem to be misusing it.
I asked you what specific fallacy, you used the claim of straw man, unfortunately you did not understand what that fallacy is as you misused it. So again, what fallacy am I using by simply asking you to validate your claim?
The fallacy is that I've actually made a claim of authority on the subject to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
So far, as you have already stated, you are appealing to an authority, fine... but I don't accept appeals to an authority in such arguments as it does not answer to the question. Your link you provided did not answer to the question I gave. So you can either accept that you really aren't sure if your position is valid and we will be done, or you can continue to grasp at being correct and use fallacious tactics to discuss. I will only attend the latter for a bit and then I will disregard your discussion as internet chatter. /shrug
What is my position again exactly and point out specifically where I made the claim? I'd love to see it.
would that happen in the state where you live? if not, it's not your problem. it is far worse to have mistakes made at the federal level than to have mistakes in a few states. another question, there are loads of people who believe in creationism, are they inferior engineers, lawyers and doctors because of this? does it really matter if some people believein a little man in the sky? i rack my brain trying to decide the importance of darwin's theory in my everyday life and unless you're a genetic scientist, by which time you might have discovered some of the flaws in the creationist idea, it really is irrelevant.
it is far worse to have a federal dept which increasingly promotes some very dangerous ideas and there are loads of those
It was one example as the other member mentioned something about the Feds trying to brainwash people with their curriculum. So, what are the so called dangerous ideas that the department is giving us?
Let's put it this way. There is more evidence for Evolution than there is for the existence of atoms or gravity. That is right. We still aren't quite sure what causes matter to be attracted to matter.
While we have seen bacteria and other simple organisms evolve before our very eyes in the laboratory. We can clearly see how modern lifeforms evolved through fossil records. We see evidence of evolution with vestigial and near vestigial organs in existing animals (including humans). We have gained even more evidence of evolution taking place through analysis of DNA that proves that animals that were grouped together (like humans and apes) are indeed closely related and the DNA evidence follows extremely closely with previous hypothesis.
Sure, these are cases for correlation to that effect, but you know as well as I that it is not evidence of the larger assumption being made. Micro aspects of change can give an indication (changes found within existing species of adaption), but that does not mean it crosses the boundaries of species themselves. There are objections to be made, and I am not trying to claim evolution invalid, merely stating that to accept the position that it is "fact", is misleading, sound as the argument "may" be, it is still not the grounds for proclaiming such as fact. That is where theoretical and practical science tend to have issues. Not that theoretical is not useful, or lacking importance, but it can not establish itself in dominance over that of the practical.
Here you say I am hostile, but as you can see, there is no implication of such in my response. This is an insertion of intent, laying the ground work for a character discredit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Hostile? How so?
You provided an appeal to authority to which is not a part of the scientific method as evidence to your claim, I corrected you... If that is hostile, then.. ok... I am hostile. /boggle
And where in your link according to the scientific method do they establish their position as valid?
No, I am not going to challenge your "links", you must take a part in this discussion. If you are not capable, then don't make claims you can not properly support.
Now you begin to backtrack from your position above:
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbird82
What claims did I make? I stated from my understanding the scientific community as a whole supported the idea that evolutionary biology conforms to the scientific method.
I already stated that I'm not a scientist by profession and won't pretend to understand evolutionary biology or scientific method at anything but a rudimentary level. Maybe you have the qualifications to speak on the subject?
With that said, just b/c jbird82 can't explain evolution and it's conformity to the scientific method doesn't mean evolution isn't supported by the scientific method.
Your argument is one giant fallacy.
I explained that you used an appeal to authority as evidence (consensus was one) when I specifically asked you for the evidence of support to your claim. You then back tracked as to being knowledgeable, but continued on establishing a position of validity by only using an appeal to authority.
I also find it odd that you refer to yourself in the third person? Did someone post this for you? That would explain maybe a lack of knowledge in the previous positions made? Though you may just like to refer to yourself in the 3rd person, so I honestly do not know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbird82
My argument is whatever consortium came together to establish the curriculum for what is taught in scientific classrooms deemed evolution a valid topic.
For some reason, you disagree with that one particular item (evolution) without addressing any other theories/topics that are part of a high school science curriculum.
Why you settled on evolution, I don't know. Most likely because you are merely echoing the opinions you've read and understand at a very rudimentary level (as I do).
So my only advice to you is be careful as you climb down from your pedestal as you have yourself perched up pretty high there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Valid topic is not the same as a factual result of a proven theory. Nothing wrong with teaching evolution under such a position. The consensus of such is irrelevant.
Because evolution is often believed by many to be a proven scientific theory. It is not, it has many holes and it only takes one hole to show a hypothesis to lacking validation.
The others? Well they are just the same, also in the same state. Which is often the point of contingency between them. One side argues the holes of the other side, neither are able to properly validate their position according to the scientific method. How many cheerleader either side makes no difference in that respect.
Because, just like the assumptions you are making here, so are they made with evolution. The fact that you are unwilling to recognize such has already been validated by you. That is, you have accepted it as fact, because you were told it was. That may be well enough for you, but it is by no means a valid position to proclaim fact of any given issue.
Being that your advice is based on that of assumptions to which you have no means to validate, advice is something you should not likely be giving concerning such. /shrug
Now, here you again validate my assessment of your position (red and green) which is that you were relying on whatever consensus you established on the topic.
You speculate, again building intent of position to which you clarify your assumption of that intent (blue).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbird82
I'm curious as to what your credentials are to speak on this subject with such conviction? You use some slick terminology but I've yet to see any substance in your opinion other than putting the onus on the poster's of this forum to provide you with a detailed explanation of how evolution conforms to the scientific method.
Are we not allowed to say the universe is 13 billion years old or the closest star is 4 light years away (or whatever) without being able to speak in great detail on the matter?
Again I ask, why this particular subject? Why not black holes or big bang or geology of earth, etc?
And again with the blue you are asking for credentials, when they have absolutely no relevance to the discussion. If you are right, it is simplistic to show such through a comparison of validation concerning the scientific method. Others posted in response, they argue the "weight" of the information, but they do not declare it as "fact" such as you are.
so why would you first imply emotion in my posts, then go on to suggest my motive in another, and then begin to question my credentials on the subject? These are all indicators of establishing a character discredit. Each time I asked you specifically about the weakness in your argument, you evaded and then moved the dicuss me specifically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbird82
You've done this over and over. You're the one that jumped to the conclusion that I personally made an argument for the conformity of evolutionary biology to the scientific method. If you find one post where I made this claim, I'll concede my argument.
There up there, look at them, where you specifically justify its validity when I specifically asked what made such according to the scientific method. Each time, you validated by claims of the authority of the consortium of scientists and the consensus of scientists. I was asking the same question over and over, if you did not think that consensus was evidence of such, why did you state it consistently as you did?
If that was not your intention and you are not saying that consensus and the scientific position of such is not validity concerning that of the scientific method, then we had a misunderstanding and there is nothing more to say. /shrug
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbird82
The fallacy is that I've actually made a claim of authority on the subject to begin with.
Again, if it is a misunderstanding, very well, but I specifically asked you, and the responses are there to review, concerning what validated the position according to the scientific method. Your responses were consistently to consensus as an authority. That isn't a fallacy I made, but a direct attention to your responses to my question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbird82
What is my position again exactly and point out specifically where I made the claim? I'd love to see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbird82
My argument is whatever consortium came together to establish the curriculum for what is taught in scientific classrooms deemed evolution a valid topic.
In your own words. And that is not valid to the question I asked. You saying that since they decided it was valid, makes it valid.. well... again we have a problem because validity is not established by like opinion in science.
It was one example as the other member mentioned something about the Feds trying to brainwash people with their curriculum. So, what are the so called dangerous ideas that the department is giving us?
I guess the briggs guy isn't going to tell us what the dangerous ideas are.
I for one don't like the Dept. of Edu's handling of secondary education, but I realize it's a bulwark to a return to institutionalized segregation (and in areas outside the south, which remain more segregated today than in the era of Brown).
That being said, the Dept. of Edu's handling of student loans and higher edu is increasingly valuable in ascertaining that the poor and minority groups have an opportunity to attend college. Yet when they get to college -- when ALL students get to college -- they just seem to be more enthused about spending mom and dad's and the gov's money on beer and circus rather than opening up a book. I'd have a more favorable opinion of the Dept. of Edu if they made it mandatory that you must be at least 22 years old before entering higher ed. College kids are way too immature to be taking university-level classes and the secondary system (governed more by state depts. of edu) haven't fully prepared most for the rigors of college work.
I guess that idea could have dangerous implications on the national economy as most of these lazy, spoon-fed college kids will actually have to get a job in the interegnum years, or sponge off of mom and dad for four years before they could enroll. At the same time, and I tell my students this all of the time, that if they don't want to be in college (b/c most don't), then drop out, get hired on at the golden arches, work your way into management, and by age 26 you could be making as much as $40K as a regional manager. By age 30 you could be in corporate operations, knocking down bigger bucks -- all for knowing how to flip burgers and to flip them well.
Needless to say, today's college generation doesn't care to know the truth.
Speaking of which, reading this thread confirms my suspicions that Americans remain an anti-learning bunch. Most on this thread want decentralized educational apparatuses so schools could be watered down even further -- or be geared to some ideological hogwash that won't help anyone out at any stage of their lives.
[quote=Nomander;20766420] Look over the discussion, note unfounded assumption of my responses.
Here you say I am hostile, but as you can see, there is no implication of such in my response. This is an insertion of intent, laying the ground work for a character discredit.
Now you begin to backtrack from your position above:
Quote:
I explained that you used an appeal to authority as evidence (consensus was one) when I specifically asked you for the evidence of support to your claim. You then back tracked as to being knowledgeable, but continued on establishing a position of validity by only using an appeal to authority.
I also find it odd that you refer to yourself in the third person? Did someone post this for you? That would explain maybe a lack of knowledge in the previous positions made? Though you may just like to refer to yourself in the 3rd person, so I honestly do not know.
Now, here you again validate my assessment of your position (red and green) which is that you were relying on whatever consensus you established on the topic.
You speculate, again building intent of position to which you clarify your assumption of that intent (blue).
And again with the blue you are asking for credentials, when they have absolutely no relevance to the discussion. If you are right, it is simplistic to show such through a comparison of validation concerning the scientific method. Others posted in response, they argue the "weight" of the information, but they do not declare it as "fact" such as you are.
so why would you first imply emotion in my posts, then go on to suggest my motive in another, and then begin to question my credentials on the subject? These are all indicators of establishing a character discredit. Each time I asked you specifically about the weakness in your argument, you evaded and then moved the dicuss me specifically.
There up there, look at them, where you specifically justify its validity when I specifically asked what made such according to the scientific method. Each time, you validated by claims of the authority of the consortium of scientists and the consensus of scientists. I was asking the same question over and over, if you did not think that consensus was evidence of such, why did you state it consistently as you did?
If that was not your intention and you are not saying that consensus and the scientific position of such is not validity concerning that of the scientific method, then we had a misunderstanding and there is nothing more to say. /shrug
Again, if it is a misunderstanding, very well, but I specifically asked you, and the responses are there to review, concerning what validated the position according to the scientific method. Your responses were consistently to consensus as an authority. That isn't a fallacy I made, but a direct attention to your responses to my question.
In your own words. And that is not valid to the question I asked. You saying that since they decided it was valid, makes it valid.. well... again we have a problem because validity is not established by like opinion in science.
You just don't get it. This whole debate began as you said with my statement: "According to the scientific community, yet it is."
The fallacy is that my stating this is not an appeal to authority of any kind. Why you don't get it I don't understand. I merely state that the scientific community as a whole deems evolution a worthy topic for a high school curriculum. Whether that is right or wrong is a debate for another thread.
For some reason, you have twisted that into an appeal to authority. I'm done here though. You've obviously twisted the original meaning of my statement in hopes I'd take your evolution bait and when I wouldn't you had nothing to grasp to other than "well you just appeal to authority like all the other sheep". Good luck finding someone else to play along.
Works for me. As if we don't have the ability to teach or OWN kids without the help of a huge beruracracy in Washington run by a bunch of political interests. Kids graduating from schools 100 years ago would run rings around the ones today and thre was no such thing as an NEA 100 years ago.
Well, even a mormon, (oops, Bachman is a a generic moron) gets something right every now and then. Yes we need to axe the Dept. of Education - it is expensive and provides too many bureaucrats jobs in Washington, politicizes schools and does what government does best - creates stupid regulations and rules that cost money and hampers organizations from doing their jobs.
Delegate resposibility for schools back down to the state and local levels.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
