- #1
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 1,830
- 5
Come on guys, this thread exists because of off-topic posts. Don't start an evolution debate in addition to it.
loseyourname said:Come on guys, this thread exists because of off-topic posts. Don't start an evolution debate in addition to it.
octelcogopod said:What exactly is going on?
loseyourname said:I don't agree that Dawkins is a good example of a person demonstrating "true-believerism" unless you're referring to his work in theology, but this isn't the place to debate that.
loseyourname said:It's okay to restrict your contention that certain members show traces of scientistic bias in their own thinking by only referring to their thinking. We needn't expand the discussion into the realm of public education and policy.
loseyourname said:If you must do so, however, I'd prefer you use an example of a scientist holding a belief that was later clearly shown to be in error, rather than contesting claims that are held to by the scientific orthodoxy.
loseyourname said:This is still primarily an education forum devoted to promoting the scientific orthodoxy, and that includes Dawkins' writings on evolutionary theory. I agree that standard of evidence disputes are covered under the auspices of epistemology and do belong here, but we're treading on delicate territory that is not taken to kindly in these parts when we start to question the standard of evidence for a foundational theory of the life sciences.
First, the same rules on personal attacks applies to attacks on mentors. Lyn was absolutely correct in trying to clean up that mess. LYN *is* the mentor over the philosphy forum here and is highly qualified. Please feel free to excersize your right to stop posting here, no one is forcing you to stay if you disagree.Les Sleeth said:So, it seems to me you have gone beyond administering the forum and imposed your views over mine without seeing a need to make your case. Hopefully you don't think you are truly qualified to mentor anybody in philosophy, so I don't know why you have censored me.
You have been around enough to remember the old TD secion, right? That objection sounds exactly like some of the objections we got to closing it. I haven't read the thread in question, but our time is not infinite and because of that we need to make judgements on what is worthwhile to discuss and how long we should indulge certain arguments before saying enough is enough.Les Sleeth said:Besides, I've not challenged the principles of science in the slightest. In fact, my call for objectivity is in support of one of the highest ideals of science. What I have challenged are excesses of scientism believers. If you truly love science, why wouldn't you welcome that or be fully ready to prove me wrong?
Les Sleeth said:Dawkins is not only a "believer" of the category my thread is highlighting, he is downright fanatical about it. His arrogance isn't limited to antievolutionists either, he is just as condenscending to his own colleagues, Prince Charles, President Clinton, the Dean of Oxford, etc. He thinks he is so "right" that anyone who disagrees with him is automatically treated as a nitwit. In my opinion, he is a perfect example of "believerism" because he believes so strongly he cannot present the evidence in a balanced manner, and he cannot tolerate other views.
So, it seems to me you have gone beyond administering the forum and imposed your views over mine without seeing a need to make your case. Hopefully you don't think you are truly qualified to mentor anybody in philosophy, so I don't know why you have censored me.
Why must I wait to criticize illogic, claims that lack evidence, and bias? Even if Mr. Dawkins turns out to be right, that doesn't mean he should have glossed over evidential gaps during the discovery process.
It is perfectly proper to question process; in fact, Mr. Dawkins does so himself in his critique of Gould's book "Wonderful Life." Am I to be denied criticizing science exaggerations because it makes people uncomfortable? If I am wrong in my opinion, the correct way to deal with it is to make your case, not censor me.
Wow, are you serious? Now you are advocating brainwashing? Orthodoxy is beyond reproach? Dogma is the way? Are you really insisting we all stop thinking, questioning, and doubting in the philosophy section where that is what philosophy is for? Is science now to be treated as God, and like the Church of old, doubters are to be stifled?
If you want to turn PF into a mindless cheerleading club, and if Greg and the rest of the mentors agree, you are doing exactly what it takes to get rid of my input. But think about it carefully because all my experience tells me that questioning and doubting is a good thing. That is especially true in philosophy because it is the exchange of ideas, and the defense of those ideas, that brings clarity. Orthodoxy has a history of choking advancements to internal processes.
Besides, I've not challenged the principles of science in the slightest. In fact, my call for objectivity is in support of one of the highest ideals of science. What I have challenged are excesses of scientism believers. If you truly love science, why wouldn't you welcome that or be fully ready to prove me wrong?
Epistemological standards refer to the criteria used to evaluate the validity and reliability of knowledge claims and theories. In theory-formation, these standards are used to assess the soundness of a proposed theory and its ability to accurately explain and predict phenomena.
Considering epistemological standards is important because it ensures that the knowledge and theories we accept are based on sound reasoning and evidence. It also helps to avoid biases and errors in our understanding of the world.
Epistemological standards are specific to the field of epistemology and focus on the criteria for evaluating knowledge claims and theories. Other types of standards, such as ethical or aesthetic standards, pertain to different areas of inquiry.
Some common epistemological standards include coherence, which assesses the logical consistency of a theory, and empirical evidence, which evaluates the supporting evidence for a theory. Other standards may include simplicity, explanatory power, and predictive ability.
Scientists apply epistemological standards in various ways, depending on the field of study and the specific research question. For example, they may design experiments to test a theory's predictions or use statistical analysis to evaluate the strength of evidence. They also critically evaluate the assumptions and reasoning behind a theory to determine if it meets epistemological standards.