Your definition is incorrect as you seem to think history cannot have the scientific method applied to it, thus you definition of the scientific method is either wrong or you interpret it too narrowly.

That is a non-sequitor.

At the same time evolution does meet the strict requirements you set out.

I believe we went into some detail on this and I showed how the examples you gave were wrong, but you keep reverting back to generalisations instead of whether it does actually satisfy the requirement.

This issue will be resolved when you acknowledge that you fly in the face of the scientific community.

Like I said, I do not, and argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. You seem to be getting further and further away from discussing the issue in any depth.

and while I know you have confessed you are incapable of ever admitting you are wrong

quote me

I am challenging your argument in the public arena

but you aren't actually challenging it. Merely contradicting it and then getting halfway through the debate before reverting back to simply contradicting it without any substance is not a meaningful challenge.

The biggest problem with your idea on evolution is that there is no debate amongst the scientific community about the merits of evolution as a scientific theory.

My idea is not about the merits of the theory of evolution.

In fact it is rarely even regarded as a theory any more, most scientists simply call it a law of nature.

No they don't.

The scientific community you could say are well aware of the philosophies of the scientific method, and the vast majority of them agree that evolution fits extremely well within the bounds of rigorous scientific method.

No they are not aware. As Kuhn pointed out this is not even necessary and rarely plays a role in 'normal science.' You certainly have no grounds on which to claim that the vast majority agree that evolution is a scientific theory. You are being hypocritical in demanding that I find scientists who agree with me when I have not based my argument on anyone's credentials, while at the same time basing your argument on absurd claims of some kind of consensus in the scientific community which does not exist and which you have zero evidence for.

You showed nothing, I gave you a ton of evidence and you just said "No that's not science".

That's not true. I explained it for you. You repeated the evidence. I explained it again. You didn't accept my explanation so you pretended it didn't exist.

You did not point to one single detail once.

There was no need to after I had done the same thing many times already. They all appeared to 'fail' for the same reason. You seem to have a strange view of how this sort of debate works. You can't just link to pages and apges of marginally relevant 'evidence' and expect me to go through every detail and explain again why it isn't relevant. That's not how it works. Instead, I say why they appear to not back up your view, then if you disagree you pull out an example. Or better yet, pull out the best example first.

but you have not once actually proved how any specific example I gave does not meet the requirements of the scientific method

Yes I have. I just haven't repeated the same process over and over again for you. I explained why they all failed. You ignored that and found a different example of the same 'kind'. Rather than finding more and more pieces of evidence that show the same thing, you should have responded to my explanation as to why they don't disprove me. That would have moved the deabte forward.

I guess democracy is a logical fallacy then?

No democracy is a form of government. It's the worst form, except for all the others. What is a logical fallacy is to assume that any government policy is just or right because it was arrived at through democracy.

Please link to where those quotes are from. I believe you got them out of order.

I have given you a pile of substance, to which you have replied "that is wrong" and gone no deeper than simply stating it.

Wrong. I did go deeper. You just got upset because I could exclude all thse pages of evidence with a simple explanation. You did not give me a pile of 'substance,' you gave me a pile of irrelevant details.

You say history cannot be studied empirically, I told you that is wrong and gave evidence of why it is wrong, you simply said 'no'.

No, I explained why. You backed away from that explanation in favour of misrepresenting what I said.

Proof? Because as I said, I read a helluva lot of science journals and I don't see much debate about whether or not evolution is science. Plenty of debate about other theories...

You missed the point - which you brought up yourself. It was about whether it was regarded as law, not science. You made an absurd claim which you cannot back up. Furthermore, the lack of debate does not mean anything, except that you were looking in science journals and wondering why there were no articles on philosophy there.

There you go again, all the scientists of the world do not know what science is and yet freediver does and he has come to save them from their ignorance.

That is a strawman and you know it.

there is a ton of debate between scientists and religious cranks about whether or not evolution is science

No there is't. There si debate about whether it is true. That first link you provided didn't even work.

the vast majority of scientists agree that evolution is an undeniable law of nature

There you go again. You have absolutely no evidence to back this up. Do you realise that in order to show that a 'vast majority' agree with you, you need more than just a few links that seem to agree with you.

Zoso, you and others have provided many examples of 'evidence' that supposedly contradicts me. I have explained why it doesn't contradict me. Rather than following on from that, you went and found more of the same evidence, then gave links to that evidence without even explaining why it is relevant. That is simply not how debates work. You don't just give links and expect the other person to figure out why you still think that link is relvant. That just shows that you don't understand the argument you are engaged in. If you can't explain it yourself, then a link to something that is even less relevant and written by someone who was not responding to the same question or statement is not going to help.

If you took the time freediver (heres a hint!) you would find articles which support your view...you only make yourself look like an idiot by refusing to do so..

Here you show your misunderstanding of how debates work. As you acknowledge, we can both find other people who agree with us. What is the point then of simply finding lots of articles that agree with us? It goes nowhere. I'm not sure how many times I have said this, but I will say it again. I'll even put it in bold in case you missed it all those other times:

Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

Perhaps we need to start a new thread on that for you so you can stop trying to sidetrack this discussion with logical fallacies.

I see now freediver, evidence is irrelevant even if it clearly demonstrates the ways in which evolution is tested empirically, using the very same scientific method you describe. I'm sorry I should have known that evidence which contradicts your assertions is logically irrelevant, how silly of me.

Also, you have never once taken one of my examples and explained clearly what part of the study is not empirical. Not once, no matter how many times you repeat yourself there is no written evidence of you ever having done that.

Finally, I am not making attempts at argumentum ad populum, I am trying to demonstrate that those people who are trained in the field of science, who know the scientific method well, much more intimately than you do, believe that evolution meets the standards of scientific method.

My point is simple... because clearly you are not one of them.

I would not go out and tell my doctor how to treat my diseases... I urge you to consider the same wisdom here.

Quote:


Nah... I agree that we disagree. More than anything really I want you to acknowledge that this is not a black and white, clear cut issue. But I think you have.

This is pointless, we should both be using our heads to inform people about relevant issues... whether or not either one of us is right here is inconsequential. Evolution will never be removed from school science curriculum as you want it to be, and whether one of us concedes defeat or not will not change the work that scientists are doing.

I shall bow and take my leave from this debate.

"Are maths and science the same thing?"

No.  One is a derivative of the other.

Senexx wrote on Dec 20^th, 2009 at 7:05pm:


They both seem to come down to philosophy, and they also merge with religion when the hardest questions are asked.
It makes it all the more interesting.

Are you suggesting that a greater focus on intuition and creativity will enhance critical thinking? Critical thinking is a skill. It has to be trained, otherwise you end up with the intellectual laziness of those who think intuition can solve everything. There is a lot more to critical thinking than being brave enough to reject what someone tells you, which is about as far as a focus on inspiration will get you. For example the following claim: "Western science and mats is the same because they both are based on...." is very creative, but does not stand up to critical analysis. Since when are two fields of philosophy the same merely because it is based on the same thing?

All approaches to knowledge require indoctrination. The success of maths and science has nothing to do with that indoctrination, which is common to all approaches, but is down to the inherent value of the methods they use - methods which happen to be different, despite the arm waving 'intuitive' link to Aristotle's syllogism.

BTW, can you explain how science is based on Aristotle's syllogism?

So you can't explain how science is based on Aristotle's syllogism?