Is PZ Myers correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ribozyme
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ribozyme

Guest
scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/flowcharts_for_science_and_fai.php
Here’s how science works—it’s got that all-important feedback loop from real-world evidence to our interpretations, so it’s grounded in something other than our fantasies, but it’s also complicated and messy and constantly changing.
Click to expand...
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2007/02/science_flowchart.gif

and
Here’s faith. Wow. It’s so simple. It’s so clean. No wonder some people find it so appealing.
Click to expand...
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2007/02/faith_flowchart.gif
 
forget the faith flowchart - anyone who thinks that’s the way science is conducted is naive at best, and disingenuous at worst.

have you actually read any of the history and philosophy of science? it’s sort of a rhetorical question, because i choose to believe that if you had, and if you thus realized how ridiculous that post is, you wouldn’t have actually put it up.
 
although, i will say that the last few pieces of the science chart are interesting: since when did modifying a theory to account for recalcitrant data become an epistemic virtue? when systems of relgious thought do that it’s called ad hoc, and is counted as a vice…
 
Is that how PZ Myers arrived at his nutty claims about Scott Adams, not to mention Ken Miller? Dawkins at least comes off as a man who knows he’s being sloppy, even dishonest, with his arguments about religion and God. Myers operates on a ‘questioning these concepts is wrong’ level.

Also - keep an idea forever? That hardly describes Catholicism; we’ve had Thomism, the counter-reformation, various councils - all of which involved change, rethinking, and understanding. You may disagree with it, but ‘Keep idea forever’ (Then why all those councils and - pardon me - evolution of ideas) and ‘Ignore contradicting evidence’ (Then why are there philosophers who engage the problem of evil? Why is there such a long tradition of church sponsorship of universities, and even the sciences?)?

Not to mention, you and I were just engaged in a thread discussing the RNA world and the problems with it. What have RNA World proponents done in the face of contradicting evidence? Why did Maxwell Planck, when illustrating Quantum Mechanics, remark how his goal wasn’t to convince the established professors, but the younger ones, because the established ones were beyond hope for accepting that kind of challenge to their worldview?
 
Church_Militant said:
I’d say that Myers is the victim of his own fallacious premise with respect to faith, since there is sufficient evidence to warrant a very reasonable and rational belief in God and so it might well be that he is the one who occupies his middle box.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
Click to expand...
But here’s the real test.

It can be demonstrated that, while some people certainly do stick to their ideas in the face of contradicting evidence… the limits are not drawn along religious lines. Communists, fascists, even adherents of certain scientific concepts or a/nontheistic philosophies do the same thing. It’s easily demonstrable with a cursory glance at history.

So…

In the face of obvious evidence - even Richard Dawkins admitted to this sort of thinking in the Soviet regime - can we expect PZ Myers to alter his flowcharts? And if we can’t, doesn’t that mean he’s pretty much placed himself on the second one? 🙂
 
Is that how PZ Myers arrived at his nutty claims about Scott Adams, not to mention Ken Miller? Dawkins at least comes off as a man who knows he’s being sloppy, even dishonest, with his arguments about religion and God. Myers operates on a ‘questioning these concepts is wrong’ level.
Click to expand...
Do you think PZ Myers’ claims about Steve Sailer are nutty?

You should look at this blog entry:
pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/in_which_steve_sailer_makes_me_ill/

You should find that encouraging as this reveals PZ’s concern for the poor. It is rather magnanimous that he stands up against racism.
Not to mention, you and I were just engaged in a thread discussing the RNA world and the problems with it. What have RNA World proponents done in the face of contradicting evidence? Why did Maxwell Planck, when illustrating Quantum Mechanics, remark how his goal wasn’t to convince the established professors, but the younger ones, because the established ones were beyond hope for accepting that kind of challenge to their worldview?
Click to expand...
From a personal communication for Gerald Joyce (2/2/06). Yes. he gave me permission to quote him from that specific communication.
Skepticism regarding the RNA world is very healthy, and hopefully will lead either to tightening up the shortcomings of this hypothesis or to the development of a better alternative hypothesis. [M]aintain a healthy dose of skepticism.
Click to expand...
Do you want to accuse Gerald Joyce of being religious? He is an RNA world proponent. Nevertheless, I can say this about Professor Joyce; although I think his views on the origin of life are incorrect, his views are derived from his comprehensive knowledge of biochemistry, his own laboratory work, and a detailed understanding of the origin of life literature. If you doubt this, PM me and I will send you some of his review articles on the origin of life.

I would not equate his views with religious faith, but he at least has some evidence for his position (e.g. the ribosome is an RNA catalyst) and the ribosome could be a relic from the RNA word.
 
ribozyme said:
You should find that encouraging as this reveals PZ’s concern for the poor. It is rather magnanimous that he stands up against racism.
Click to expand...
So do many of the people over at Answers in Genesis. That alone doesn’t lend credibility to their methodology, or even their general demeanor.

Will Myers, in the face of overwhelming evidence that his charts are incorrect, alter his charts? If not, he belongs on chart 2. If so, well, you’ve answered your OP question.
 
I guess we just need the definitive experiment that will prove or disprove God then. Any ideas?
 
VociMike said:
I guess we just need the definitive experiment that will prove or disprove God then. Any ideas?
Click to expand...
sure: either the ball in my hand will remain suspended in mid-air when i release it, or god exists.

p v q
~p
q

QED
 
Or, your missing third premise; the ball drops for other reasons, such as God not revealing himself in that manner because we haven’t had the Second Coming yet. Maybe some other reason as well. In fact, since there are so very many, that argument fails with a “b” 😛
 
Firefox said:
Or, your missing third premise; the ball drops for other reasons, such as God not revealing himself in that manner because we haven’t had the Second Coming yet. Maybe some other reason as well. In fact, since there are so very many, that argument fails with a “b” 😛
Click to expand...
this disjunctive argument doesn’t have a third premise: it is valid as presented…

it may certainly fail as something, but it’s not as an argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top