Choices Choices
Godevodevo
you can understand better than I. Why do so many otherwise normal,
sane individuals make the choice to remain ignorant about science in
general, including of course, evolution? And not only do they choose
to remain ignorant, many seem to become angry and beligerant when the
facts are presented. Almost like a three year old covering there ears
and shouting "la lal la I can't hear you" when they don't want to hear
or do what you say. I really would like to understand what the real
issue is here. What is the real motivation? I used to think it was
fear of losing faith, but now I'm not so sure. Any ideas?
John Wilkins
<36479671-c502-4b58...@w17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Godevodevo <tazze...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I long ago decided that those who get angry when their views are
challenged are those least sure of their views. I had two ethics
lecturers, for instance. One I argued hammer and tongs for the entire
subject, at the end of which he told me I was wrong and awarded me a
high distinction. The other permitted no debate and marked me as a fail
because I didn't adopt his version of act utilitarianism. Guess which
one was more secure?
But there's another temptation in play. We all have personal interests
(by which I mean, things that serve our interests) that we do not want
to see undercut. When we are faced with a technical matter than
challenges our desires or self-interest, we can avoid learning about it
in order to support our goals. Science is *hard* - the phrase "rocket
science" only denotes the *bottom* of the science-is-hardness-scale (I
call it the More Scale). So not everyone can or should learn it.
However, this means that those who do not *want* something to be true,
because it means they cannot continue to believe what they like about
Hummers, health or God, can ignore the facts and continue in their
blind fashion.
Moreover, once that happens you get a side benefit - you can now
include and exclude people on the basis of whether they agree with you.
This gives you friends, and scapegoats, and unifies your social life
accordingly.
People aren't rational, as K said. They are scared, panicky animals...
DougC
> I know others here had to have noticed this as well so maybe some of
> you can understand better than I. Why do so many otherwise normal,
> sane individuals make the choice to remain ignorant about science in
> general, including of course, evolution? And not only do they choose
> to remain ignorant, many seem to become angry and beligerant when the
> facts are presented.
Have you ever encountered an adult illiterate? They can get
belligerant when their deficiency is outed. They reationalize with a
sneer that nobody needs to read and they can get along very well
without going to all that trouble of studying. "Just because you can
read that don't make you any smarter than me."
Doug Chandler
Garamond Lethe
> I know others here had to have noticed this as well so maybe some of
> you can understand better than I. Why do so many otherwise normal,
> sane individuals make the choice to remain ignorant about science in
> general, including of course, evolution?
Answering that question is the begining of wisdom. Or at least empathy
(which, as career skills go, is probably more valuable).
> And not only do they choose
> to remain ignorant, many seem to become angry and beligerant when the
> facts are presented. Almost like a three year old covering there ears
> and shouting "la lal la I can't hear you" when they don't want to hear
> or do what you say.
Evangelical Christians say the same about non-evangelicals. This might
give you pause.
> I really would like to understand what the real
> issue is here. What is the real motivation? I used to think it was
> fear of losing faith, but now I'm not so sure. Any ideas?
A few, yes.
There are several theories about the evolution of religion that
hypothesize that faith must be costly, perhaps to discourage free-riders.
When you get above the hunter-gatherer stage an into urban civilization,
there are too many people around to keep track of using kin relationships.
You need to distinguish your people (for whom you would incur significant
cost in order to help) from not-your-people. Religion fills this need,
but if joining the religion is cost-free, then there can be too many
people joining who have no interest (conscious or not) in sacrificing
if the need arises.
To get around this problem, effective religions are costly. This can
be expressed in very practical terms --- regularly giving up a portion
of your harvest or herd --- or symbolically by holding beliefs and
rituals that set you and other members apart.
By telling someone that their religion is wrong, what they end up
hearing is that they've wasted a lot of time/money/effort. People
don't like hearing this message. This is very human reaction and
has nothing to do with intellect or sophistication.
You're also probably not persuasive because you're not offering
something more attractive than what they already have. They have
companionship, purpose and comfort. In exchange for giving up
all of this, you're (perhaps) offering them correctness.
If creationism is what someone needs to get out of bed in the
morning and have a fulfilling life, more power to them. I'll fight
just as hard to keep their beliefs out of the science classroom as
I will to keep science out of their church. I've had my fill of
evangelicalism when I was out knocking on doors as a teenager
trying to convert folks to Christ. That's pretty much the only
part of my life I'm ashamed of, and I don't see where (metaphorically)
knocking on doors converting folks to science would give me any
more satisfaction.
marks...@yahoo.com
OK, I will take a stab at this from the other side.
1. How much science do you need to know to truly understand the theory
of evolution (leaving abiogenesis out of it)
2. Is there a good explanation for abiogenesis, or is it more wishful
thinking than science fact. Without a start TOE is irrelevant.
3. How many adults of a certain age have only a high school education,
and did that include theory of evolution ? I am thinking people in
high school from 1985 - 1970.
4.Who likes hearing that your beliefs are a simple minded pile of
crap. ? look at this forum, you tube video comments and
alt.talk.creation for examples. Starting a conversation with "you are
really dumb and your views are just crap" does not tend to lead to a
good exchange.
5. Bible literalists can not accept evolution because it makes their
Bible untrue and therefore destroys God, and hope of salvation and an
afterlife.
6. How do you PROVE , that a series of fossils are actually in the
sequence and are not simply co-existing animals found by chance ?
7. A figure often mentioned is that 99% of all living species are now
extinct. Are there actually fossils that demonstrate this or did
someone make some guesses or just pull a number out his ass ?
8. How many articles are published in general interest magazines that
present science in simple , easy to understand terms for those without
a college degree. I mean magazines like popular science, popular
mechanics and that sort of thing ?
9 I have seen comments from scientists that its not worth writing for
the general public, thay are too dumb to understand it, and the
bastards vote down money to do (whatever), only people with a PhD
should have a say in these things , they know best. Thats why the Face
on Mars, ancient astronouts etc get started.
10, are there really many mistakes in the textbooks. ? Haekles embryo
pictures keep getting mentioned. If they are in error how many
science people have written the publisher to offer a correction ?
These are questions I regularly get asked by friends trying to keep up
with their kids or grandkids homework. When they look at some of the
books they see a bunch of assertions without what they see as facts.
They see people at school board meeting who seem to be so impressed
with themselves that it comes across as "trust me on this - is true".
At times I have trouble disagreeing , and simply suggest that you
assume good faith to start and assume a peer reviewed article gets
culled if the facts are actually not present.
Places like Discovery Institute, Institute for Creation Research,
Answers in Genesis understand the psychology and I believe will win in
the high schools, at least in some states, because to many people they
seem far more trustworthy than some scientist they can barely
understand.
That my opinion :)
Steven L.
"Godevodevo" <tazze...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:36479671-c502-4b58...@w17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
Fear of science is just one part of fear of change.
Old assumptions are being challenged, all over the place:
Other nations are outperforming us in manufacturing and even in
high-tech white-collar industries--yet most Americans still think of
America as the undisputed superpower it was in 1946.
With a population of 7 billion, the globe is becoming a much smaller
place; what you do inevitably bumps into somebody else. The atmosphere
can no longer be thought of as infinite whose use is free.
Science cannot find justification for time-honored folkways and mores of
how society deals with sex and vice.
Science cannot find justification for most of the fact claims about the
natural world stated in the Bible.
Science is not value neutral. Its discoveries challenge many old
assumptions about society, politics, economics, and even our personal
values.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"John Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:130420101538144251%jo...@wilkins.id.au:
It's also the fact that scapegoating scientists is easy, because they're
a small minority without much political clout who are unused to fighting
back in the political arena. Historically, minorities lacking political
clout were frequently singled out by demagogues seeking political power.
-- Steven L.
Ernest Major
<e04855d3-0f57-4483...@u22g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
marks...@yahoo.com writes
>On Apr 12, 10:23 pm, Godevodevo <tazzer4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I know others here had to have noticed this as well so maybe some of
>> you can understand better than I. Why do so many otherwise normal,
>> sane individuals make the choice to remain ignorant about science in
>> general, including of course, evolution? And not only do they choose
>> to remain ignorant, many seem to become angry and beligerant when the
>> facts are presented. Almost like a three year old covering there ears
>> and shouting "la lal la I can't hear you" when they don't want to hear
>> or do what you say. I really would like to understand what the real
>> issue is here. What is the real motivation? I used to think it was
>> fear of losing faith, but now I'm not so sure. Any ideas?
>
>OK, I will take a stab at this from the other side.
>
>1. How much science do you need to know to truly understand the theory
>of evolution (leaving abiogenesis out of it)
How long is a piece of string?
>2. Is there a good explanation for abiogenesis, or is it more wishful
>thinking than science fact. Without a start TOE is irrelevant.
That is not true. The theory of evolution is an explanation for the
diversity and disparity of the past and contemporary terrestrial biota;
it doesn't depend on how life appeared on the planet. Life could have
arisen/arrived by spontaneous abiogenesis, supernatural abiogenesis
("creation"), directed abiogenesis, spontaneous panspermia, local
panspermia, directed panspermia, accidental panspermia, or some other
alternative that has escaped my attention; it could even has be produced
by backwards time travel as part of a causal loop. The validity of the
theory of evolution is not affected by which of these processes life
appeared on the Earth.
>3. How many adults of a certain age have only a high school education,
>and did that include theory of evolution ? I am thinking people in
>high school from 1985 - 1970.
>4.Who likes hearing that your beliefs are a simple minded pile of
>crap. ? look at this forum, you tube video comments and
>alt.talk.creation for examples. Starting a conversation with "you are
>really dumb and your views are just crap" does not tend to lead to a
>good exchange.
>5. Bible literalists can not accept evolution because it makes their
>Bible untrue and therefore destroys God, and hope of salvation and an
>afterlife.
>6. How do you PROVE , that a series of fossils are actually in the
>sequence and are not simply co-existing animals found by chance ?
For clarity, the fossil record is but a small part of the evidence for
the factuality of common descent with modification through the agency of
natural selection and other processes.
But to return to your question, the proof that they are not co-existing
animals is that they are found in different strata. The fossil record is
imperfect, but it is not so imperfect that we can't infer a faunal
succession, with correlations between the fauna of successive strata.
This is as retrodicted and predicted by the theory of evolution. It is
not as predicted by Young Earth Creationism - hydrological sorting and
ecological zonation as explanations are jokes.
In general we can't demonstrate that a sequence of fossils represents a
lineage - that one fossil species is ancestral to another, rather than
being a cousin of the ancestor. Nor can we PROVE it in the mathematical
sense. But where the fossil record is sufficiently fine-grained we can
have a fair degree of confidence.
But, what the fossil record does offer, as predicted by the theory of
evolution, is morphologically transitional fossils.
>7. A figure often mentioned is that 99% of all living species are now
>extinct. Are there actually fossils that demonstrate this or did
>someone make some guesses or just pull a number out his ass ?
The number of known fossil species is about 250,000. The number of
living species is numbering in the millions - high end estimates are
approach 100 million (but not all of these are known). So clearly it is
not directly demonstrated by actual fossils.
But you've offered a false dichotomy. The estimate is based on more than
someone making guesses, or pulling numbers out their ass. The fossil
record is better for some groups (e.g. coastal marine organisms with
hard parts) than others, and is good enough to estimate a typical
species lifetime. The past diversity of some groups can also be
estimated reasonably well, and is comparable to the current diversity
(when you take account of turnover in higher taxa as well as species).
If you assume that the figures for groups with good fossil records apply
to other groups, then you can infer an estimate of what proportion of
species are extinct. For a rough figure take 500 million years with
approximately current levels of diversity, and an average species
lifespan of 5 million years, and you have the 99%.
>8. How many articles are published in general interest magazines that
>present science in simple , easy to understand terms for those without
>a college degree. I mean magazines like popular science, popular
>mechanics and that sort of thing ?
>9 I have seen comments from scientists that its not worth writing for
>the general public, thay are too dumb to understand it, and the
>bastards vote down money to do (whatever), only people with a PhD
>should have a say in these things , they know best. Thats why the Face
>on Mars, ancient astronouts etc get started.
>10, are there really many mistakes in the textbooks. ? Haekles embryo
>pictures keep getting mentioned. If they are in error how many
>science people have written the publisher to offer a correction ?
Haeckel's embryo pictures are generally absent from textbooks, except in
a historical review, where Haeckel's errors would be stated.
Haeckel had an erroneous theory of development (ontogeny recapitulates
phylogeny), and his illustrations contained errors. Whether this was
fraud, as alleged, or expectation bias, is not something I can tell.
Given that I've seen creationists criticise him for drawing the embryos
at the same size (for ease of comparison) and with yolk removed (so that
other structures can be seen) I'm not sure that there is any fire.
Creationists conflate the use of Haeckel's drawings in textbooks (you'd
be hard put to find one using them except in their historical context)
and the use of other and accurate images of vertebrate embryos. The
homologies of vertebrate embryos are part of the evidence for common
descent - and complaints about Haeckel an attempt to poison the well.
>
>These are questions I regularly get asked by friends trying to keep up
>with their kids or grandkids homework. When they look at some of the
>books they see a bunch of assertions without what they see as facts.
>They see people at school board meeting who seem to be so impressed
>with themselves that it comes across as "trust me on this - is true".
>At times I have trouble disagreeing , and simply suggest that you
>assume good faith to start and assume a peer reviewed article gets
>culled if the facts are actually not present.
>
>Places like Discovery Institute, Institute for Creation Research,
>Answers in Genesis understand the psychology and I believe will win in
>the high schools, at least in some states, because to many people they
>seem far more trustworthy than some scientist they can barely
>understand.
>
>That my opinion :)
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Kalkidas
>I know others here had to have noticed this as well so maybe some of
> you can understand better than I. Why do so many otherwise normal,
> sane individuals make the choice to remain ignorant about science in
> general, including of course, evolution?
Some people, since they are, as you point out, normal, sane individuals,
when they hear the version of "science" presented by those who embrace
Darwinism, are not impressed. Thus they "choose to ignore" it in the same
way that the President might choose to ignore the chattering of hecklers
when he is trying to give a speech.
marks...@yahoo.com
> In message
> <e04855d3-0f57-4483-826b-fdb6591e0...@u22g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> marks542...@yahoo.com writes
>
>
>
> >On Apr 12, 10:23�ｿｽpm, Godevodevo <tazzer4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I know others here had to have noticed this as well so maybe some of
> >> sane individuals make the choice to remain ignorant about science in
> >> to remain ignorant, many seem to become angry and beligerant when the
> >> and shouting "la lal la I can't hear you" when they don't want to hear
> >> issue is here. �ｿｽWhat is the real motivation? �ｿｽI used to think it was
> >> fear of losing faith, but now I'm not so sure. �ｿｽAny ideas?
>
> >OK, I will take a stab at this from the other side.
>
> >1. How much science do you need to know to truly understand the theory
> >of evolution (leaving abiogenesis out of it)
>
> How long is a piece of string?
>
> >2. Is there a good explanation for abiogenesis, or is it more wishful
look at it from the viewpoint of a churchgoing 60 year old who
graduated high chool and became a carpenter. I am not meaning young
earth creationist.
fossils infer maybe , but could a fossil have lived before the next
one in the proposed series and simply not have been fossilized ? is
there solid proof or conjecture ? I accept that some fossil sequences
are fine enough to be a good conclusion but commonly ALL sequences are
proclaimed as fact.
so the 99% extinct is based on a statistical estimate ? how certain
is the evidence for that, how much off could it be ? remeber the
viewpoint of the person you want to convince. If I find three mice in
my yard, and they occupy 10 square feet , and my yard is 1000 sq feet,
am I correct in stating that there must be 300 mice ?
My nephews biology text book shows a series of embryo drawings. The
text below the picture mentions Haekel. It is very unclear if they are
his drawings or not. It may be a bad bit of detail but a quick
examination would lead me to believe that this book from 2004 has
Haekels embryos as a teching point about development of different
animals. I have a question to the publisher sent and am waiting on a
reply.
The big problem that I see is well meaning people who may not be the
best qualified in the subject make fairly sweeping statements that are
not fully supportable and that makes all statements about evolution
suspect by the audience that needs to be convinced.
What I meant by evolution being irrelevant is that statements made
that you dont need God , the universe and life can be explained by
evolution. Well no it cant, biological evolution shows how diversity
of life may have occured once life existed. The origin of life seems
very unclear. Yet you have people who stand up at school board
meetings and declare "you are a fool to believe in God, he does not
and never did exist, science can explain everything ! " and then
people wonder why the general public doesnt fall quietly into
line.
I favor a solid science curriculum especially if it teaches the
scientific method.
YECS are a problem because once you start having an active God doing
supernatural stuff, throw all hope of reason out the window. Could God
have made the Universe 6000 years ago, and fiddled everything so it
looked old. Sure, why not. Too much heat, radiation , light speed
doesnt make it work, bah a mere trifle for an omnipotent God.
Ernest Major
<b8ffd8b0-958e-4361...@x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>,
marks...@yahoo.com writes
>On Apr 13, 10:46 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <e04855d3-0f57-4483-826b-fdb6591e0...@u22g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>> marks542...@yahoo.com writes
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 12, 10:23 pm, Godevodevo <tazzer4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> I know others here had to have noticed this as well so maybe some of
>> >> sane individuals make the choice to remain ignorant about science in
>> >> to remain ignorant, many seem to become angry and beligerant when the
>> >> and shouting "la lal la I can't hear you" when they don't want to hear
>> >> fear of losing faith, but now I'm not so sure. Any ideas?
>>
>> >OK, I will take a stab at this from the other side.
>>
>> >1. How much science do you need to know to truly understand the theory
>> >of evolution (leaving abiogenesis out of it)
>>
>> How long is a piece of string?
>>
>> >2. Is there a good explanation for abiogenesis, or is it more wishful
What big mice you have, uncle.
The "99% of all species are extinct" is not a precise estimate, but an
indication of the order of magnitude. Presumably somewhere out there are
more detailed estimates.
Statistical estimates are more reliable when based on larger samples. If
you make an estimate based on 3 mice then your margin of error is going
to be large; if you base it on 250,000 fossil species then it's going to
be smaller. The risk isn't statistical uncertainty, but errors in the
model. For example, for the numbers I gave, if there was a step function
in plant and arthropod diversity when angiosperms evolved, then the 99%
would be an overestimate. However, I think that the figure I gave for
the species lifetime (it was for illustrative purposes only) is too
large by a factor more than sufficient to offset the increase in
diversity (punctuated by mass extinctions) over time. (It's not a
question I've studied, but I suspect that 99% is an underestimate. There
are 99.9% figures out there as well, which I suspect to be an
overestimate. But Wikipedia has an uncited 97%.)
There's also the question of bacterial diversity over the previous 3
billion years, and pre-Cambrian protist diversity, which adds to the
percentage that are extinct.
>
>My nephews biology text book shows a series of embryo drawings. The
>text below the picture mentions Haekel. It is very unclear if they are
>his drawings or not. It may be a bad bit of detail but a quick
>examination would lead me to believe that this book from 2004 has
>Haekels embryos as a teching point about development of different
>animals. I have a question to the publisher sent and am waiting on a
>reply.
If you were to give the title and edition of your nephew's textbook
their may well be someone here who can answer this. There are people who
have studied this issue, and if I recall correctly some of them
participate here.
>
>The big problem that I see is well meaning people who may not be the
>best qualified in the subject make fairly sweeping statements that are
>not fully supportable and that makes all statements about evolution
>suspect by the audience that needs to be convinced.
>
>What I meant by evolution being irrelevant is that statements made
>that you dont need God , the universe and life can be explained by
>evolution. Well no it cant, biological evolution shows how diversity
>of life may have occured once life existed. The origin of life seems
>very unclear. Yet you have people who stand up at school board
>meetings and declare "you are a fool to believe in God, he does not
>and never did exist, science can explain everything ! " and then
>people wonder why the general public doesnt fall quietly into
>line.
>
>I favor a solid science curriculum especially if it teaches the
>scientific method.
>
>YECS are a problem because once you start having an active God doing
>supernatural stuff, throw all hope of reason out the window. Could God
>have made the Universe 6000 years ago, and fiddled everything so it
>looked old. Sure, why not. Too much heat, radiation , light speed
>doesnt make it work, bah a mere trifle for an omnipotent God.
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Robert Camp
> "Godevodevo" <tazze...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:36479671-c502-4b58...@w17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>> I know others here had to have noticed this as well so maybe some of
>> you can understand better than I. Why do so many otherwise normal,
>> sane individuals make the choice to remain ignorant about science in
>> general, including of course, evolution?
>
> Some people, since they are, as you point out, normal, sane individuals,
> when they hear the version of "science" presented by those who embrace
> Darwinism, are not impressed.
But isn't the salient question whether they are willing to take the
next step and examine that reaction? We, of course, do this all the
time, in ways that anti-evolutionists find frustrating and patronizing
- notably in the familiar argument that while you may not be impressed
with evolution you apparently don't extend this skepticism to all
scientific disciplines (physics, medicine, chemistry etc.).
Creationists create various arguments that, from our perspective,
appear to be raw equivocation and become frustrated when we make this
observation. But through it all I get very little sense that an
internal analysis of any kind has taken place; that the individual in
question has ever taken a moment to think about the contradiction
inherent in his approach, and wonder at the caliber of his choices.
Can you explain this?
> Thus they "choose to ignore" it in the same
> way that the President might choose to ignore the chattering of hecklers
> when he is trying to give a speech.
But these are not the same things at all. If you reverse the numbers as
well as the professional distinction (i.e., the ones whose authority is
most appropriate are also the ones with the most credentials) then
maybe the analogy might work. But of course at that point it makes an
argument quite the opposite of the one you propose.
RLC
Gridleak
Or is it the other way around?
DON
AC7PD
Kalkidas
news:2010041311562416807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
> On 2010-04-13 10:24:29 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
>
>> "Godevodevo" <tazze...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:36479671-c502-4b58...@w17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>>> I know others here had to have noticed this as well so maybe some of
>>> you can understand better than I. Why do so many otherwise normal,
>>> sane individuals make the choice to remain ignorant about science in
>>> general, including of course, evolution?
>>
>> Some people, since they are, as you point out, normal, sane individuals,
>> when they hear the version of "science" presented by those who embrace
>> Darwinism, are not impressed.
>
> But isn't the salient question whether they are willing to take the next
> step and examine that reaction? We, of course, do this all the time, in
> ways that anti-evolutionists find frustrating and patronizing - notably in
> the familiar argument that while you may not be impressed with evolution
> you apparently don't extend this skepticism to all scientific disciplines
> (physics, medicine, chemistry etc.).
>
> Creationists create various arguments that, from our perspective, appear
> to be raw equivocation and become frustrated when we make this
> observation. But through it all I get very little sense that an internal
> analysis of any kind has taken place; that the individual in question has
> ever taken a moment to think about the contradiction inherent in his
> approach, and wonder at the caliber of his choices.
>
> Can you explain this?
First, I regard Godevodevo's post as obsequious. She implies that remaining
ignorant about "evolution" is the same as remaining ignorant about "science
in general", as if science *must* include Darwinism or it's not science. But
that's not true, and I don't like the insinuation, so I replied
sarcastically.
Second, people can (and many do) reject Darwinism for scientific reasons. It
is not that the rejection of Darwinism is indicative of a mental aberration
in an otherwise "normal, sane individual". But that is Godevodevo's
implication, and again, it's not true.
Third, crazy is crazy, on both sides of the aisle. If Godevodevo wants to
talk about a "temporary insanity" that causes rejection of Darwinism, she
might want to balance it with the same "temporary insanity" that causes
rejection of creationism. Why pick on Kent Hovind and Henry Morris but not
Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins?
Fourth, I'm not trying to be obsequious by substituting "Darwinism" for
"evolution". I'm just calling a spade a spade.
>> Thus they "choose to ignore" it in the same
>> way that the President might choose to ignore the chattering of hecklers
>> when he is trying to give a speech.
>
> But these are not the same things at all. If you reverse the numbers as
> well as the professional distinction (i.e., the ones who,se authority is
> most appropriate are also the ones with the most credentials) then maybe
> the analogy might work. But of course at that point it makes an argument
> quite the opposite of the one you propose.
There are outspoken, nasty anti-evolutionists and there are outspoken, nasty
evolutionists. I'm not hung up on the analogy. Change it to a scenario where
the President abuses his bully pulpit and just goes on rambling and rambling
so that reporters can't get in a question.
John Stockwell
> "Godevodevo" <tazzer4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
The real problem for people like Kalkidas is that there is so much of
mainstream science that does not agree with his religion-derived
worldview, that his only coping mechanism is to brand it an alternate
philosophy, applying the fashionable but meaningless label
"Darwinism" to any science he does agree with. Then as with any
other philosophy he doesn't agree with, he feels he can safely ignore
it.
Maybe he can, but then why post on talk.origins?
bpuharic
i dont know of anyone who 'embraces darwinism'. i know ALOT of
scientists who, being neither evolutionary biologists, or
creationists, objectively assess the data and decide that creationism
is a 3000 year old failure
>
bpuharic
>>
>> Can you explain this?
>
>First, I regard Godevodevo's post as obsequious. She implies that remaining
>ignorant about "evolution" is the same as remaining ignorant about "science
>in general", as if science *must* include Darwinism or it's not science. But
>that's not true, and I don't like the insinuation, so I replied
>sarcastically.
no educated person, and certainly no scientist, should be ignorant of
the facts of evolution.
and yes, you are ignorant. you're a religious fanatic who has yet to
come to grips with the failure of your theology
>
>Second, people can (and many do) reject Darwinism for scientific reasons
really? you guys keep saying this. you never provide any proof or
data.
>
>There are outspoken, nasty anti-evolutionists and there are outspoken, nasty
>evolutionists. I'm not hung up on the analogy. Change it to a scenario where
>the President abuses his bully pulpit and just goes on rambling and rambling
>so that reporters can't get in a question.
bush isn't president anymore
>
marks...@yahoo.com
> marks542004 wrote:
> > Starting a conversation with "you are really dumb and your views are
> > just crap" does not tend to lead to a good exchange.
>
> arguments of any value to offer and who only wish to defend their silly
> misconceptions. You either flat out tell them this, a bit stronger worded
> perhaps you just tell them to shut up and listen, or you ignore them.
>
> And you certainly don't let them vote on anything, but that's just the
> utopist in me... ;)
and thats why a church going parent says "fuck you" and votes in
creation science.
treat someone like a dumb second class person and you deal with the
result.
How do you like someone saying "I dont give a crap for your views, I
am going to take your child and teach them their parents are stupid
retards who should be prevented from voting while I the great educated
man decides what you learn and when and how." Maybe you could start a
castrate the dummy program. Any person who doesnt have at least a
masters degree gets castrated or spayed so the stupid cant repoduce.
Robert Camp
Well, I agree that's a bad argument, and it's part of the reason I used
the word patronizing. I would only say that many of us here get as
tired of the continuous implication that anti-evolutionists are all
stupid or insane as you and other creationists do.
But the fact is that, based upon any current common standards of
reason, those who differ with the the evolutionary consensus do so
either because they are uneducated or out of intentional denial. And
while this doesn't require similar ignorance of other scientific
disciplines, it implies a willing disdain for naturalistic methodology
that is likely to give any defender of science pause.
> Second, people can (and many do) reject Darwinism for scientific reasons.
But this is simply not the case, unless you are willing to include in
the category of "scientific reasons" misunderstanding science. In other
words, if I (not being a physicist) reject relativity based upon my
misinterpretation of the theory, does that count as "scientific
reasons?"
> It
> is not that the rejection of Darwinism is indicative of a mental aberration
> in an otherwise "normal, sane individual". But that is Godevodevo's
> implication, and again, it's not true.
Well, one man's mental aberration is another's flawed reasoning. It's
hard for me to get too excited about the "normal, sane individual"
business but as I said, I can see where you're coming from. Anyway, as
I implied above you've opted to reject exceedingly well-founded and
documented science, so you would be myopic not to expect some of that.
> Third, crazy is crazy, on both sides of the aisle. If Godevodevo wants to
> talk about a "temporary insanity" that causes rejection of Darwinism, she
> might want to balance it with the same "temporary insanity" that causes
> rejection of creationism. Why pick on Kent Hovind and Henry Morris but not
> Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins?
Of course that's easy: Hovind and Morris are wrong, they don't have the
science on their side. Dennett and Dawkins do.
> Fourth, I'm not trying to be obsequious by substituting "Darwinism" for
> "evolution". I'm just calling a spade a spade.
>
>>> Thus they "choose to ignore" it in the same
>>> way that the President might choose to ignore the chattering of hecklers
>>> when he is trying to give a speech.
>>
>> But these are not the same things at all. If you reverse the numbers as
>> well as the professional distinction (i.e., the ones who,se authority is
>> most appropriate are also the ones with the most credentials) then maybe
>> the analogy might work. But of course at that point it makes an argument
>> quite the opposite of the one you propose.
>
> There are outspoken, nasty anti-evolutionists and there are outspoken, nasty
> evolutionists. I'm not hung up on the analogy. Change it to a scenario where
> the President abuses his bully pulpit and just goes on rambling and rambling
> so that reporters can't get in a question.
Well, I don't think that works either, but I agree it's not that important.
RLC
Moist Lipwig
> On Apr 13, 11:25 am, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>> marks542004 wrote:
>> > Starting a conversation with "you are really dumb and your
>> > views are just crap" does not tend to lead to a good exchange.
>>
>> There can't be any sort of meaningful exchange with people who have no
>> arguments of any value to offer and who only wish to defend their silly
>> misconceptions. You either flat out tell them this, a bit stronger worded
>> perhaps you just tell them to shut up and listen, or you ignore them.
>>
>> And you certainly don't let them vote on anything, but that's just the
>> utopist in me... ;)
> and thats why a church going parent says "fuck you" and votes in
> creation science. treat someone like a dumb second class person
> and you deal with the result.
>
> How do you like someone saying "I dont give a crap for your views, I
> am going to take your child and teach them their parents are stupid
> retards who should be prevented from voting while I the great educated
> man decides what you learn and when and how." Maybe you could start a
> castrate the dummy program. Any person who doesnt have at least a
> masters degree gets castrated or spayed so the stupid cant repoduce.
>
Churches would go out of business from lack of gullible suckers...
Wait, that's not such a bad idea you had there.
Kalkidas
No. I don't misinterpret Darwinism, or neo-Darwinism, or whatever you want
to call the hypothesis that all organisms are descended from a common
ancestor by random genetic variation filtered through natural selection. I
definitely do not misinterpret that. That is really what the "evolutionary
consensus " is. I don't say it makes claims that it doesn't make. I simply
don't think the evidence supports it beyond a reasonable doubt. I think the
evidence does support simple Darwinian-like processes operating on an
intra-species level, and (depending on how you define "species") possibly on
an intra-generic level. But I do not see a rationale for extrapolating that
to the entire biota. It doesn't convince me. In fact, I am actually
astounded at those who see in the fossil record any such thing as an
intermediate form. I seriously mean that!
So please don't blame a "misinterpretation" for my refusal to "get in line".
David Hare-Scott
>
> Second, people can (and many do) reject Darwinism for scientific
> reasons.
You keep saying this. Are you ever going to explain it and support your
case or are you going to just keep asserting it? Show us how and why it can
be rejected.
David
bpuharic
>
>
>No. I don't misinterpret Darwinism, or neo-Darwinism, or whatever you want
>to call the hypothesis that all organisms are descended from a common
>ancestor by random genetic variation filtered through natural selection. I
>definitely do not misinterpret that. That is really what the "evolutionary
>consensus " is. I don't say it makes claims that it doesn't make. I simply
>don't think the evidence supports it beyond a reasonable doubt.
and yet he believes in astrology. go figure
I think the
>evidence does support simple Darwinian-like processes operating on an
>intra-species level, and (depending on how you define "species") possibly on
>an intra-generic level. But I do not see a rationale for extrapolating that
>to the entire biota.
and he doesnt believe that because??
oh. because the vedas say otherwise. makes sense. 3000 years of a
failed idea that led to suttee and 'untouchables'...
It doesn't convince me. In fact, I am actually
>astounded at those who see in the fossil record any such thing as an
>intermediate form. I seriously mean that!
other than the fact they exist?
>
>So please don't blame a "misinterpretation" for my refusal to "get in line".
OK i won't. i blame religious fanaticism. same thing happens to muslim
fanatics
>
bpuharic
you obviously didn't get the memo.
if you say something that's wrong for 3000 years...
it becomes true.
David Hare-Scott
It seems to satisfy him in some way to take casual shots without being
forced to provide evidence. TO supplies the target and he just ignores the
question of evidence.
David
Robert Camp
A question then: Do you think it's possible for a process to be so well
understood, so completely evidenced at a "lower" level (say, something
like species or genera as you suggest), and additionally so well
corroborated by (what some would call) indirect auxiliary evidence at
"higher" levels, that as a result it becomes incumbent upon a skeptic
to produce evidence of barriers to, or changes in, that process such
that it no longer works at the "higher" level?
In other words, if I want to argue with a linguist that although the
languages of the world do clearly change and evolve in small ways, they
cannot have come from some fewer number of ancestral languages because
I don't accept that the same processes operated at that scale and exact
records of those transitions are unavailable to us, isn't the linguist
entitled to ask me, perhaps even condescendingly, why that should be so?
At that point, as I see it, my choices are,
a) offer evidence that such processes cannot account for the kind of
change I don't accept, or,
b) trust the consensus of those who've investigated those processes
much more thoroughly than I
However, if I instead choose,
c) continue to disbelieve the consensus of those who know, while at the
same time believing that my perspective is scientifically correct
....wouldn't people be justified in calling my position a
misunderstanding of the issue?
> It doesn't convince me. In fact, I am actually
> astounded at those who see in the fossil record any such thing as an
> intermediate form. I seriously mean that!
I don't doubt it.
> So please don't blame a "misinterpretation" for my refusal to "get in line".
See, the problem is that you're not just refusing to get in line.
You're in line virtually by yourself, telling everyone else they're in
the wrong line and, in spite of their previous success there, they
should trust that yours is actually the correct line.
RLC
John Wilkins
<wf...@comcast.net> wrote:
http://hinessight.blogs.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/biz
arro_cartoon_1.jpg
Kalkidas
Yes it's possible. But I don't think that there is "well corroborated
indirect auxiliary evidence at higher levels" of taxonomy.
> In other words, if I want to argue with a linguist that although the
> languages of the world do clearly change and evolve in small ways, they
> cannot have come from some fewer number of ancestral languages because I
> don't accept that the same processes operated at that scale and exact
> records of those transitions are unavailable to us, isn't the linguist
> entitled to ask me, perhaps even condescendingly, why that should be so?
Suppose that the vocabulary, grammar, and syntax of languages is likened to
the genetic code of organisms. The situation is that we have well-preserved
examples of ancient languages from which to make precise linguistic
comparisons. Moreover, we only have to explain the last, say, 6000 years of
written language, because that's about how old we believe written language
is. Yet even with all this going for us, there is still a lot of legitimate
argumentation about whether there was ever such a thing as
"proto-indo-european". It will probably never be decided.
The situation with the actual genetic code is far worse. The only DNA
samples we have are from relatively modern organisms. Yet, Darwinian
evolution is supposed to encompass lengths of time orders of magnitude
greater than what scholars think is the age of written language.
> At that point, as I see it, my choices are,
> a) offer evidence that such processes cannot account for the kind of
> change I don't accept, or,
> b) trust the consensus of those who've investigated those processes much
> more thoroughly than I
> However, if I instead choose,
> c) continue to disbelieve the consensus of those who know, while at the
> same time believing that my perspective is scientifically correct
>
> ....wouldn't people be justified in calling my position a misunderstanding
> of the issue?
My choice would be to say that since there are no surviving examples of
"proto-indo-european" there is no conclusive proof that it was really a
language. Some scholars have offered tentative reconstructions of its
vocabulary grammar and syntax, based on extrapolating from known linguistic
change rates, but these are purely hypothetical pending the discovery of an
actual manuscript. Therefore, the alternative, for instance, that Sanskrit
is actually the root of the indo-european languages, is also an acceptable
theory.
Is that not reasonable?
bpuharic
wrote:
>arro_cartoon_1.jpg
ah, the talents of karl rove...where would we be without him...
bpuharic
>"Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2010041317234816807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
>> On 2010-04-13 16:36:18 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
>>
>
>> In other words, if I want to argue with a linguist that although the
>> languages of the world do clearly change and evolve in small ways, they
>> cannot have come from some fewer number of ancestral languages because I
>> don't accept that the same processes operated at that scale and exact
>> records of those transitions are unavailable to us, isn't the linguist
>> entitled to ask me, perhaps even condescendingly, why that should be so?
>
>
>The situation with the actual genetic code is far worse. The only DNA
>samples we have are from relatively modern organisms. Yet, Darwinian
>evolution is supposed to encompass lengths of time orders of magnitude
>greater than what scholars think is the age of written language.
>
which is irrelevant. we can test principles of science across the
universe by looking at starlight, the oklo reactor, etc. the
fundamentals of scientific laws do not appear to change with space and
time.
that applies to evolution.
religion? well...it's hard to claim that your religious beliefs are
true...when they've never explained a single feature of nature in 3000
years.
Eric Root
> "Robert Camp" <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2010041317234816807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
>
>
>
> > On 2010-04-13 16:36:18 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
>
> >>news:2010041314490116807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
> >>> On 2010-04-13 12:44:56 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
>
> >>>>news:2010041311562416807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
> >>>>> On 2010-04-13 10:24:29 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
>
No, it's not. In the case of languages, you are not denying that
languages change into other languages over time, you just think the
tree branches in a slightly different place than the scientific
consensus. In the case of biological evolution, you are arguing
against the entire picture, denying that the tree even exists. By the
way, philologists rejected the "Sanskrit as ancestor" hypothesis long
ago, after serious consideration. It is obvious that Sanskrit is too
new; it is an ancient cousin, and that there must have been an
unattested common ancestor. Proto-indo-european is the name for
whatever that common ancestor actually was, and it must have been a
language, what other thing could it have been?
Eric Root
Robert Camp
> "Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2010041317234816807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
>> On 2010-04-13 16:36:18 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
>>
>>>
>>> "Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2010041314490116807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
>>>> On 2010-04-13 12:44:56 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
>>>>
>>>>> "Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:2010041311562416807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
>>>>>> On 2010-04-13 10:24:29 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Godevodevo" <tazze...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:36479671-c502-4b58...@w17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
I'm pretty confident most taxonomists would suggest that molecular
phylogenetics alone quashes that notion. However, there's always
paleontology, paleobotany, comparative anatomy, genomics, population
biology, geology, even genetic algorithms...etc., etc,. And that's just
what pops into my head at the moment.
Evolutionary consilience runs deep in the sciences, your distrust
notwithstanding.
>> In other words, if I want to argue with a linguist that although the
>> languages of the world do clearly change and evolve in small ways, they
>> cannot have come from some fewer number of ancestral languages because I
>> don't accept that the same processes operated at that scale and exact
>> records of those transitions are unavailable to us, isn't the linguist
>> entitled to ask me, perhaps even condescendingly, why that should be so?
>
> Suppose that the vocabulary, grammar, and syntax of languages is likened to
> the genetic code of organisms. The situation is that we have well-preserved
> examples of ancient languages from which to make precise linguistic
> comparisons. Moreover, we only have to explain the last, say, 6000 years of
> written language, because that's about how old we believe written language
> is. Yet even with all this going for us, there is still a lot of legitimate
> argumentation about whether there was ever such a thing as
> "proto-indo-european". It will probably never be decided.
And that's a fine argument for dealing with some putative specific
ancestral language. But it doesn't address the point I was making,
which is about the general existence of ancestral forms, and whether
their ancestry can be waved away by simply suggesting that processes we
observe working today cannot account past forms.
> The situation with the actual genetic code is far worse. The only DNA
> samples we have are from relatively modern organisms. Yet, Darwinian
> evolution is supposed to encompass lengths of time orders of magnitude
> greater than what scholars think is the age of written language.
Well, that's a continued denial of uniformitarianisman mixed with an
argument from incredulity - both pretty hard landings to stick such
that anyone knowledgeable is going to give you a decent score.
In any case, it again misses the point about whether (and by what
logic) we should assume that there were some barriers that prevented
the contemporary evolutionary mechanisms with which we are familiar
from working in the past.
>> At that point, as I see it, my choices are,
>> a) offer evidence that such processes cannot account for the kind of
>> change I don't accept, or,
>> b) trust the consensus of those who've investigated those processes much
>> more thoroughly than I
>> However, if I instead choose,
>> c) continue to disbelieve the consensus of those who know, while at the
>> same time believing that my perspective is scientifically correct
>>
>> ....wouldn't people be justified in calling my position a misunderstanding
>> of the issue?
>
> My choice would be to say that since there are no surviving examples of
> "proto-indo-european" there is no conclusive proof that it was really a
> language. Some scholars have offered tentative reconstructions of its
> vocabulary grammar and syntax, based on extrapolating from known linguistic
> change rates, but these are purely hypothetical pending the discovery of an
> actual manuscript. Therefore, the alternative, for instance, that Sanskrit
> is actually the root of the indo-european languages, is also an acceptable
> theory.
>
> Is that not reasonable?
Sure, if my argument was that you should prefer one putative ancestral
candidate over the other. But that's not the case.
- You suggested, in the process of insisting that you do not
misinterpret the science, that "microevolution" was acceptable while
"macroevolution" was not.
- I offered a hypothetical (which bent over backwards in allowing that
there might be something analogous to "higher level" development in
evolution when in fact no one suggests that any representative of any
taxonomic rank wasn't itself at one time a simple transitional form) in
order to demonstrate that your distinction was arbitrary and counter to
the evidence.
- In reply you have chosen to argue against specific macroevolutionary
(or macrolinguistic if we follow the hypothetical) forms, rather than
respond to the issue - which is that there is plenty of corroborating
evidence to suggest that the evolutionary mechanisms we observe
producing change in present forms are powerfully explanatory and
predictive for past forms.
Your distinctions, your qualms about "extrapolating that to the entire
biota," represent a misunderstanding of the science.
RLC
Burkhard
> "Robert Camp" <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2010041317234816807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
>
>
>
> > On 2010-04-13 16:36:18 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
>
> >>news:2010041314490116807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
> >>> On 2010-04-13 12:44:56 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
>
> >>>>news:2010041311562416807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
> >>>>> On 2010-04-13 10:24:29 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
>
Well, yes and no. If we take your analogy serious, then in the case of
the ToE, your issue would be if say the multiple genesis theories of
Margulis or Hartman are correct. Even though they "technically" get
rid of the notion of one single common ancestor, they are still
perfectly main stream science and is .discussed as such. If eve proven
true, no evolutionary biologist would lose a minute's sleep over it.
Second, the reason that in linguistics both monogenesis and
polygenesis are controversially discussed is that there is specific
evidence against the monogenetic theory, it is not just as argument
from "absence of evidence", In the biology setting, the equivalent
would be finding species which have an additional acid in their DNA -
would not totally rule out the single ancestor theory, but weaken it
considerably. So far, no such clear inconsistency has been found in
biology
Finally , even if we often can't prove in these contexts one theory,
even in a weak sense of proof, we can regularly disprove proposals,
and also often decide which of two competing proposals. In the
language setting, this means even though the evidence for the proto-
indo European language is weak, the Sanskri first "theory can be ruled
out with a much higher level of confidence - several modern languages
would look different if there had not been an alternative root from
which Sanskrit itself developed, and within Sanskrit, the pattern of
substrata also points to linguistic influences on Sanskrit from
various source languages.
Nick Keighley
> I know others here had to have noticed this as well so maybe some of
> you can understand better than I. Why do so many otherwise normal,
> sane individuals make the choice to remain ignorant about science in
> general, including of course, evolution?
because it is perceived as irrelevent to their lives and from their
memories of school, boring. Why should the average person needd to
know about science? They can function quite happily without it.
> And not only do they choose
> to remain ignorant, many seem to become angry and beligerant when the
> facts are presented.
that isn't very common (though not unknown) where I live. I've
probably only met a handful (literally) of outed creationists in my
entire life.
> Almost like a three year old covering there ears
> and shouting "la lal la I can't hear you" when they don't want to hear
> or do what you say. I really would like to understand what the real
> issue is here. What is the real motivation? I used to think it was
> fear of losing faith, but now I'm not so sure. Any ideas?
I'd assumed it was that. Cognitive dissonance and all that. people
don't like their belief systems to be attacked. You can get into quite
fierce fights with astrologers and crytalites if that's what floats
your boat. Try talking about leagalising drugs, or the death penalty
or if chelsea is better tottenham (that can get you hurt where I
live!)
Nick Keighley
> In article
> <36479671-c502-4b58-b1bf-e772a54a8...@w17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Godevodevo <tazzer4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I know others here had to have noticed this as well so maybe some of
> > you can understand better than I. Why do so many otherwise normal,
> > sane individuals make the choice to remain ignorant about science in
> > to remain ignorant, many seem to become angry and beligerant when the
> > and shouting "la lal la I can't hear you" when they don't want to hear
> > or do what you say. I really would like to understand what the real
> > issue is here. What is the real motivation? I used to think it was
> > fear of losing faith, but now I'm not so sure. Any ideas?
>
> challenged are those least sure of their views. I had two ethics
> lecturers, for instance. One I argued hammer and tongs for the entire
> subject, at the end of which he told me I was wrong and awarded me a
> high distinction. The other permitted no debate and marked me as a fail
> because I didn't adopt his version of act utilitarianism. Guess which
> one was more secure?
I surprised whan I was told my english teacher had been disappointed
that I hadn't continued with the subject (perhaps the quality of my
posts tell you why!) [the uk education system specialises early]. "But
why, I argued with her all the time!" [I was convinced she just quoted
the "cliff notes"]
> But there's another temptation in play. We all have personal interests
> (by which I mean, things that serve our interests) that we do not want
> to see undercut. When we are faced with a technical matter than
> challenges our desires or self-interest, we can avoid learning about it
> in order to support our goals. Science is *hard* - the phrase "rocket
> science" only denotes the *bottom* of the science-is-hardness-scale (I
> call it the More Scale). So not everyone can or should learn it.
> However, this means that those who do not *want* something to be true,
> because it means they cannot continue to believe what they like about
> Hummers, health or God, can ignore the facts and continue in their
> blind fashion.
things non-scientist have believed (ie. people I kmow)
- a computer virus is a living thing
- a video tape has lots of tiny little pictures on it
- compasses point north because of the iron mountains in canada
- the stars are shiny rocks that reflect sunlight
- the internet has a single master computer
- ordinary mobile phones use satellites
> Moreover, once that happens you get a side benefit - you can now
> include and exclude people on the basis of whether they agree with you.
> This gives you friends, and scapegoats, and unifies your social life
> accordingly.
>
> People aren't rational, as K said. They are scared, panicky animals...
Nick Keighley
> Godevodevo wrote:
> > I know others here had to have noticed this as well so maybe some of
> > you can understand better than I. Why do so many otherwise normal,
> > sane individuals make the choice to remain ignorant about science in
> > general, including of course, evolution? And not only do they choose
> > to remain ignorant, many seem to become angry and beligerant when the
> > facts are presented.
>
> belligerant when their deficiency is outed.
I just accept the "I havn't got my glasses" or "the light is bad" "can
you read that"
> They reationalize with a
> sneer that nobody needs to read and they can get along very well
> without going to all that trouble of studying. "Just because you can
> read that don't make you any smarter than me."
you obviously meet a meaner class of adult illiterate. Maybe "outing"
them isn't so clever? I'm impressed with their coping strategies and
often their general intelligence. They have to have better memories
than us.
Nick Keighley
> On Apr 12, 10:23�ｿｽpm, Godevodevo <tazzer4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I know others here had to have noticed this as well so maybe some of
> > sane individuals make the choice to remain ignorant about science in
> > to remain ignorant, many seem to become angry and beligerant when the
> > and shouting "la lal la I can't hear you" when they don't want to hear
> > issue is here. �ｿｽWhat is the real motivation? �ｿｽI used to think it was
> > fear of losing faith, but now I'm not so sure. �ｿｽAny ideas?
>
> OK, I will take a stab at this from the other side.
>
> 1. How much science do you need to know to truly understand the theory
> of evolution (leaving abiogenesis out of it)
> 2. Is there a good explanation for abiogenesis, or is it more wishful
> thinking than science fact. Without �ｿｽa start TOE is irrelevant.
> 3. How many adults of a certain age have only a high school education,
> and did that include theory of evolution ? I am thinking people in
> high school from 1985 - 1970.
> 4.Who likes hearing that your beliefs are a simple minded pile of
> crap. ? look at this forum, you tube video comments and
> alt.talk.creation for examples. Starting a conversation with "you are
> really dumb and your views are just crap" does not tend to lead to a
> good exchange.
> Bible untrue and therefore destroys God, and hope of salvation and an
> afterlife.
> 6. How do you PROVE , that a series of fossils are actually in the
> sequence and are not simply co-existing animals found by chance ?
> 7. A figure often mentioned is that 99% of all living species are now
> extinct. �ｿｽAre there actually fossils that demonstrate this or did
> someone make some guesses or just pull a number out his ass ?
> 8. How many articles are published in general interest magazines that
> present science in simple , easy to understand terms for those without
> a college degree. I mean magazines like popular science, popular
> mechanics and that sort of thing ?
> 9 I have seen comments from scientists that its not worth writing for
> the general public, thay are too dumb to understand it, and the
> bastards vote down money to do (whatever), only people with a PhD
> should have a say in these things , they know best. Thats why the Face
> on Mars, ancient astronouts etc get started.
> 10, are there really many mistakes in the textbooks. ? Haekles embryo
> pictures keep getting mentioned. �ｿｽIf they are in error how many
> science people have written the publisher to offer a correction ?
>
> These are questions I regularly get asked by friends trying to keep up
> with their kids or grandkids homework. When they look at some of the
> books they see a bunch of assertions without what they see as facts.
> They see people at school board meeting who seem to be so impressed
> with themselves that it comes across as "trust me on this - is true".
> At times I have trouble disagreeing , and simply suggest that you
> assume good faith to start and assume a peer reviewed article gets
> culled if the facts are actually not present.
>
> Places like Discovery Institute, Institute for Creation Research,
> Answers in Genesis understand the psychology and I believe will win in
> the high schools, at least in some states, because to many people they
> seem far more trustworthy than some scientist they can barely
> understand.
>
> That my opinion :)
excellent post. Almost a POTM.
Nick Keighley
> I favor a solid science curriculum especially if it teaches the
> scientific method.
how *do* you teach that? I remember a fairly prescriptive framework
for writing up experiments and a failrly simplistic observation-
>hypothesis->experiment iteration. I think I picked up a way of
thinking but I don't think it was explicitly taught.
OTH a friend recently did a degree (via the UK's Open University) in a
sociology related subject. What impressed me was the rigour. You can't
just give an opinion you have to have a correctly referenced cite. My
undergraduate science degree wasn't that rigourus. So wheather the
sociology does her any good or not she has a mental tool kit that I
can't see doing her any harm at all.
Nick Keighley
> On Apr 13, 6:14 pm, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > "Robert Camp" <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:2010041317234816807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
> > > On 2010-04-13 16:36:18 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
> > >> "Robert Camp" <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:2010041314490116807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
> > >>> On 2010-04-13 12:44:56 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
> > >>>> "Robert Camp" <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >>>>news:2010041311562416807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
> > >>>>> On 2010-04-13 10:24:29 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
> > >>>>>> "Godevodevo" <tazzer4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >>>>>>news:36479671-c502-4b58...@w17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> > > [...] if I want to argue with a linguist that although the
> > > languages of the world do clearly change and evolve in small ways, they
> > > cannot have come from some fewer number of ancestral languages because I
> > > don't accept that the same processes operated at that scale and exact
> > > records of those transitions are unavailable to us, isn't the linguist
> > > entitled to ask me, perhaps even condescendingly, why that should be so?
but why must it be a smaller number? If for long periods populations
were relativly stable why couldn't about 50 langauges evolve (and
hybridise) into a different about 50 languages? Why does there *have*
to be one proto-language?
> > Suppose that the vocabulary, grammar, and syntax of languages is likened to
> > the genetic code of organisms.
languages make bacteria look shy about sharing genetic code
> > The situation is that we have well-preserved
> > examples of ancient languages from which to make precise linguistic
> > comparisons. Moreover, we only have to explain the last, say, 6000 years of
> > written language, because that's about how old we believe written language
> > is.
yes but by confining ourselves to written langauge (which we are
probably forced to do) we are ignoring the oral soup from which the
written languages arose.
> > Yet even with all this going for us, there is still a lot of legitimate
> > argumentation about whether there was ever such a thing as
> > "proto-indo-european". It will probably never be decided.
and did everyone in some vast region all speak PIE? Was there a
cultural academy that enforced correct grammar and spelling. PIE
language police?
> > The situation with the actual genetic code is far worse.
I'm not so sure
a group of languages, maybe not even all sharing a recent common
ancestor. Languages hybridise in a horrendous fashion. Consider
pidgeons in Borneo. I believe there is a pigeon dialect spoken by
Norwegian and Russian fishermen.
I'm trying to argue the "multi-linguitic" of modern langauge" rather
than an "out of PIE" origin
--
Out of PIE Error. Do from start
[Deep Structure Error Diagnostic]
Nashton
> I know others here had to have noticed this as well so maybe some of
> sane individuals make the choice to remain ignorant about science in
> to remain ignorant, many seem to become angry and beligerant when the
> and shouting "la lal la I can't hear you" when they don't want to hear
> fear of losing faith, but now I'm not so sure. Any ideas?
Sounds like a question a 15 year old would ask.
I'm not angry, just stating a fact and making the observation that you
sound and read like a child.
Moreover, you seem to have put yourself on your own self-made pedestal
proclaiming that people that don't agree with your world view (because
it is a clash of world views) are akin to children in denial.
HTH
>
odin
Is there someting wrong with being 15?
Godevodevo
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, we are not talking about a world view. We are talking about the
denial of the facts. Being unwilling to accept reality as it is could
be interpreted as a sign of mental illness. I won't go that far, but
please do no read into it something that isn't there. Evolution is a
fact just as gravity is a fact just as electricity is a fact. They
are all observable phenomena, wiht theories that are testable and
repeatable. Please refrain from calling observed facts a world view.
Josh Miles
Which is exactly what you just did and consistently do.
Kalkidas
Uniformitarianism is a naturalistic assumption designed to reduce the
complexity of dealing with evidence. You can interpret evidence according to
it if you wish (it makes for easier reasoning) but by no means should you
claim that the evidence *supports* it. Uniformitarianism is a trade-off: the
longer the period of time involved, the more unreliable is the uniformity
assumption. In fact, it appears to me that the relationship is exponential.
Arguments from incredulity have value proportional to the degree of
incredibility of a claim. If you say that so-and-so is a descendant of
Thomas Jefferson, and I say "oh sure, and I'm a great great grandson of
George III" -- perhaps that's a bad argument from incredulity (because there
is evidence that Thomas Jefferson had human descendants, and so-and-so is
human). But if you say that so-and-so is a descendant of a "primitive
apelike creature", and I reply "yeah, and pigs live in trees", that would be
a legitimate argument from incredulity (because there is no real evidence
that anything descended from primitive apelike creatures, except other
primitive apelike creatures, and so-and-so is not a primitive apelike
creature).
In any case, it again misses the point about whether (and by what
> logic) we should assume that there were some barriers that prevented the
> contemporary evolutionary mechanisms with which we are familiar from
> working in the past.
The alternative is to assume there are no barriers. But that is also a
naturalistic assumption designed to simplify dealing with evidence. But
don't claim the evidence *supports* it, rather, it supports a certain
interpretation of evidence. It's also a trade-off that gets increasingly
unreliable over time.
Well I hope you're not going to claim that neo-Darwinism can get away with
"explaining" the origin of species without giving any specific lineages?
> - You suggested, in the process of insisting that you do not misinterpret
> the science, that "microevolution" was acceptable while "macroevolution"
> was not.
Yes, microevolution is directly observable, whereas 150 years of Darwinism
is not nearly enough time to observe alleged macroevolution. Such evidence
as there is is entirely circumstantial, and subject to the assumptions
discussed above, such as uniformitarianism, and no-barrier.
> - I offered a hypothetical (which bent over backwards in allowing that
> there might be something analogous to "higher level" development in
> evolution when in fact no one suggests that any representative of any
> taxonomic rank wasn't itself at one time a simple transitional form) in
> order to demonstrate that your distinction was arbitrary and counter to
> the evidence.
> - In reply you have chosen to argue against specific macroevolutionary (or
> macrolinguistic if we follow the hypothetical) forms, rather than respond
> to the issue - which is that there is plenty of corroborating evidence to
> suggest that the evolutionary mechanisms we observe producing change in
> present forms are powerfully explanatory and predictive for past forms.
>
> Your distinctions, your qualms about "extrapolating that to the entire
> biota," represent a misunderstanding of the science.
My standard of evidence for claims about impersonal, chance, undirected
processes alleged to occur over time becomes stricter in proportion to the
time involved. You say that's a misunderstanding of science. I say it's an
understanding of the pitfalls of human reasoning and the limitations of
human knowledge.
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> It's also the fact that scapegoating scientists is easy, because they're
> a small minority without much political clout who are unused to fighting
> back in the political arena. Historically, minorities lacking political
> clout were frequently singled out by demagogues seeking political power.
Hmmm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
Maybe not so tiny. And also, maybe not so unused to fighting back.
Socks
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> Why do so many otherwise normal,
> sane individuals make the choice to remain ignorant about science in
> general, including of course, evolution?
That's easy. Because most folks are lazy. Learning is work.
It interferes with whatever else one might be doing, like surfing
the web, watching soap operas, etc.
It's the Phillip J. Fry principle. Clever things make people feel
stupid.
Novel things make people feel afraid. Most people just want to
smile and nod agreement and get on with their days. It turns them
into what Kurt Vonnegut called "agreeing machines." You get a
quiet life by agreeing with your neighbours. They get a quiet life
by agreeing with their neighbours. Everybody's life is quiet when
everybody agrees. It matters very little, to the quiet level, whether
that agreed-upon-thing is correct. Or even vaguely sensible.
Or even whether it can be understood by a sane human.
Science isn't like that. Science is about questioning, testing,
checking, over turning old ideas when they are wrong, elaborating
them when they are incomplete, extending them when they are
right so far.
This is incompatible with the "quiet life."
Socks
Robert Camp
> "Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2010041321235516807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
>> On 2010-04-13 18:14:19 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
>>
>>> "Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2010041317234816807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
>>>> On 2010-04-13 16:36:18 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:2010041314490116807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
>>>>>> On 2010-04-13 12:44:56 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:2010041311562416807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
>>>>>>>> On 2010-04-13 10:24:29 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Godevodevo" <tazze...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:36479671-c502-4b58...@w17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
>>> The situation with the actual genetic code is far worse. The only DNA
>>> samples we have are from relatively modern organisms. Yet, Darwinian
>>> evolution is supposed to encompass lengths of time orders of magnitude
>>> greater than what scholars think is the age of written language.
>>
>> Well, that's a continued denial of uniformitarianisman mixed with an
>> argument from incredulity - both pretty hard landings to stick such that
>> anyone knowledgeable is going to give you a decent score.
>
> Uniformitarianism is a naturalistic assumption designed to reduce the
> complexity of dealing with evidence. You can interpret evidence according to
> it if you wish (it makes for easier reasoning) but by no means should you
> claim that the evidence *supports* it. Uniformitarianism is a trade-off: the
> longer the period of time involved, the more unreliable is the uniformity
> assumption. In fact, it appears to me that the relationship is exponential.
Okay, this is one of those points in the discussion where I think your
perspective runs right off the rails. As with your previous insistence
that the past and the future are metaphysical phenomena you are now in
the position of having to deny reality as virtually everyone else sees
it. Uniformitarianism goes back a thousand years in science, and
certainly much longer in the course of day to day operations.
As I suggested early on in this thread, you treat this one area of
investigation far differently from how you treat the rest of your life.
You use uniformitarianism every time you look for lost items, probe
puzzles, examine phenomena in greater detail and analyze data. It's not
only a fundamental assumption of science, it's a fundamental assumption
of any kind of interface with reality.
Not accepting the assumption of uniformity of natural processes is
tantamount to picking and choosing those aspects of observable,
empirical reality you wish, or wish not, to believe. This may work for
you, but for others that's the point where it is no longer possible to
conduct a discussion based upon any kind of rationalistic inquiry.
> Arguments from incredulity have value proportional to the degree of
> incredibility of a claim. If you say that so-and-so is a descendant of
> Thomas Jefferson, and I say "oh sure, and I'm a great great grandson of
> George III" -- perhaps that's a bad argument from incredulity (because there
> is evidence that Thomas Jefferson had human descendants, and so-and-so is
> human). But if you say that so-and-so is a descendant of a "primitive
> apelike creature", and I reply "yeah, and pigs live in trees", that would be
> a legitimate argument from incredulity (because there is no real evidence
> that anything descended from primitive apelike creatures, except other
> primitive apelike creatures, and so-and-so is not a primitive apelike
> creature).
I don't think it would be a legitimate argument, it would be a
legitimate expression of disbelief. But disbelief can be either
well-founded or not. Requiring, and evaluating, evidence proportional
to the degree of incredibility of the claim is the beginning of a
legitimate argument.
Anticipating your reply - I would simply say that denying the existence
of the evidence is not the same as asking for and evaluating the
evidence.
> In any case, it again misses the point about whether (and by what
>> logic) we should assume that there were some barriers that prevented the
>> contemporary evolutionary mechanisms with which we are familiar from
>> working in the past.
>
> The alternative is to assume there are no barriers. But that is also a
> naturalistic assumption designed to simplify dealing with evidence.
No, it's an assumption based upon loads of evidence in favor, and lack
of evidence against.
> But
> don't claim the evidence *supports* it, rather, it supports a certain
> interpretation of evidence. It's also a trade-off that gets increasingly
> unreliable over time.
It's not about time. It's about the volume and quality of the data. In
the case of evolution the volume is overwhelming and both the volume
and quality, unsurprisingly, do diminish the more millions of years we
retreat into the record. But that is only a problem for fine-grained
distinctions and questions as to the technicalities of mechanisms, not
for the overarching theoretical foundations. Evolution happens,
speciation happens, common descent is real and there is simply no
scientific question about that.
Of course I am, or do you think that in order to claim that plate
tectonics can explain the shifting face of the earth through time I
have to be able to provide specific, time-stamped, geographic tracks
for each and every continent?
Do you also suppose that if I don't know the names of my ancestors 100
generations removed that means I didn't have any?
>> - You suggested, in the process of insisting that you do not misinterpret
>> the science, that "microevolution" was acceptable while "macroevolution"
>> was not.
>
> Yes, microevolution is directly observable, whereas 150 years of Darwinism
> is not nearly enough time to observe alleged macroevolution.
Not that such is required, but in fact it has been observed in that time.
> Such evidence
> as there is is entirely circumstantial, and subject to the assumptions
> discussed above, such as uniformitarianism, and no-barrier.
Talk to Burkhard about circumstantial evidence. My guess (and I don't
know for sure) is that he will not hold it in such low regard as you
do. In any case, "circumstantial" is simply a way of describing
evidence for which there is no personal account available - and this is
the situation for nearly all of the investigations, not just
scientific, that ever get conducted. If there was something
inadmissable about circumstantial evidence for scientific
investigations we would know virtually nothing.
>> - I offered a hypothetical (which bent over backwards in allowing that
>> there might be something analogous to "higher level" development in
>> evolution when in fact no one suggests that any representative of any
>> taxonomic rank wasn't itself at one time a simple transitional form) in
>> order to demonstrate that your distinction was arbitrary and counter to
>> the evidence.
>> - In reply you have chosen to argue against specific macroevolutionary (or
>> macrolinguistic if we follow the hypothetical) forms, rather than respond
>> to the issue - which is that there is plenty of corroborating evidence to
>> suggest that the evolutionary mechanisms we observe producing change in
>> present forms are powerfully explanatory and predictive for past forms.
>>
>> Your distinctions, your qualms about "extrapolating that to the entire
>> biota," represent a misunderstanding of the science.
>
> My standard of evidence for claims about impersonal, chance, undirected
> processes alleged to occur over time becomes stricter in proportion to the
> time involved. You say that's a misunderstanding of science. I say it's an
> understanding of the pitfalls of human reasoning and the limitations of
> human knowledge.
It's an illustration of the pitfalls of your reasoning. Don't tar
naturalistic investigation with your misunderstandings. If you don't
think scientific methodology goes out of its way to fold in humility
and circumspection regarding the limitations of evidence and inference,
then you either understand science less well than I thought, or your
misunderstanding is convenient and situational (the latter of which, I
suppose, is the point I've been making all along).
RLC
Godevodevo
Excellent explanation. One of the best I've heard here.
Unfortunatly, you're probably dead on right. I just find it very very
sad. I guess I don't want to believe that people are that lazy or
that willing to agree just to keep the peace, even when it's something
that's extremly important. Thanks for the insight.
Kimberly
Burkhard
> On 2010-04-14 10:02:16 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
>
> > Such evidence
> > as there is is entirely circumstantial, and subject to the assumptions
> > discussed above, such as uniformitarianism, and no-barrier.
>
> Talk to Burkhard about circumstantial evidence. My guess (and I don't
> know for sure) is that he will not hold it in such low regard as you
> do.
Indeed not. Though I'd be very careful in phrasing it. "Circumstantial
evidence " is not really a technical term. It is commonly contrasted
with "direct evidence" in the form of an eyewitness statement
(including confessions) or a video recording etc of the crime. It goes
back to a time when people thought that his form of evidence was the
"gold standard". For a long time, it was e.g. impossible in many
western jurisdictions to convict without a confession - hence the
widespread use of torture in th e Middle ages. You often also find a
highly formulaic procedure by which both sides presented witnesses and
the one that had more won.
But eventually, it became clear that different witnesses can be more
or less reliable, and this became more and more the issue - but with
that, the privileged status of direct evidence became untenable, even
though it held on for quite some time.
By now we know just how misleading eyewitness evidence can be (again,
including confessions) and we had numerous cases where indirect or
circumstantial evidence in the form of DNA allowed us to infer with
near certainty that a miscarriage of justice had occurred and the
witnesses had been wrong. Simple check for your intuition: The
prosecution says the accused's DNA has been extracted from sperm in
the victim's vagina. The accused says he never had intercourse with
her. Do you go with the circumstantial DNA evidence or the direct
witness statement?
So as far as _reliability" is concerned, circumstantial evidence can
be much, much more reliable than direct evidence. (it can of course
also be much less reliable, depending on the evidence in question.
Note that eyewitness evidence can of course also be circumstantial in
many cases).
Nonetheless, the distinction is still to some degree useful, with a
(partly? apparently? superficially?) sound intuition behind it: Direct
evidence does not need any further inferences IF it is true. So you
can formulate two conditionals:
IF what the eyewitness claimed he saw is true, the case is proven.
EVEN IF the DNA (or any other circumstantial) evidence is true, the
case is only proven if we accept in addition the set of inferences
Y.
This however is a question of degrees: Some propositions/evidence is
closer to the "ultimate probandum" than other, requires more or less
inferences. Fingerprints e.g. are less reliable than DNA, but
marginally closer to the ultimate probandum than DNA, for instance.
Researchers at the forensic science service in the UK have developed
this idea in the rather handy "hierarchy of propositions" which is
very helpful in case analysis. (A hierarchy of propositions: deciding
which level to address in casework, R Cook, Iw Evett, G Jackson, Pj
Jones And J Lambert, Science & Justice 1998: 38(4): 231-240)
While handy practically, I increasingly doubt that the distinction has
nay content. It treat witnesses like cameras. In reality however, most
perceptions are complex and often highly indirect inferences. " I saw
the man in the red shirt stab the victim with a knife". Is that really
what you _saw_? Or did your brain make highly sophisticated inferences
based on your past experience with knifes, man and red shirts? If
"direct evidence " were a meaningful term, witnesses should report
something like Carnap's "protocol sentences": I had the impression of
red in the lower left part of my visual field.
bpuharic
>
>Uniformitarianism is a naturalistic assumption designed to reduce the
>complexity of dealing with evidence.
and creationism renders any evidence at all moot. when 'god did it' is
your explanation, you dont even need life to talk about life
>
>The alternative is to assume there are no barriers. But that is also a
>naturalistic assumption designed to simplify dealing with evidence. But
>don't claim the evidence *supports* it, rather, it supports a certain
>interpretation of evidence. It's also a trade-off that gets increasingly
>unreliable over time.
uh no. because we can look into the mechanisms of evolution. we can
look into the genome
if the barrier is there, where is it?
you, as an astrologer, are in a poor condition to tell us about
'evidence'.
>>
>> Sure, if my argument was that you should prefer one putative ancestral
>> candidate over the other. But that's not the case.
>
>Well I hope you're not going to claim that neo-Darwinism can get away with
>"explaining" the origin of species without giving any specific lineages?
dont need to. we see speciation in the fossil record. we can test
evolution in the lab
that's how science is done. if creationists knew anything about
science...they wouldnt be creationists
>
>> - You suggested, in the process of insisting that you do not misinterpret
>> the science, that "microevolution" was acceptable while "macroevolution"
>> was not.
>
>Yes, microevolution is directly observable, whereas 150 years of Darwinism
>is not nearly enough time to observe alleged macroevolution. Such evidence
>as there is is entirely circumstantial, and subject to the assumptions
>discussed above, such as uniformitarianism, and no-barrier.
as is
astrophysics
physics
chemistry
geology
etc etc.
evolution is as scientific as any other science.
creationism? 3000 y ears of failure. cant even tell us how fast a rock
falls off a cliff.
>My standard of evidence for claims about impersonal, chance, undirected
>processes alleged to occur over time becomes stricter in proportion to the
>time involved. You say that's a misunderstanding of science. I say it's an
>understanding of the pitfalls of human reasoning and the limitations of
>human knowledge.
word salad meant to justify ignorance under god
>
Mark Isaak
> [snip context]
>
> Languages hybridise in a horrendous fashion. Consider pidgeons in
> Borneo. I believe there is a pigeon dialect spoken by Norwegian and
> Russian fishermen.
I believe you mean "pidgin" dialects. To the best of my knowledge,
pigeon is spoken primarily by pigeons, and probably an occaional
mockingbird.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Burkhard
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 03:04:19 -0700, Nick Keighley wrote:
> > [snip context]
>
> > Languages hybridise in a horrendous fashion. Consider pidgeons in
> > Borneo. I believe there is a pigeon dialect spoken by Norwegian and
> > Russian fishermen.
>
> I believe you mean "pidgin" dialects. To the best of my knowledge,
> pigeon is spoken primarily by pigeons, and probably an occaional
> mockingbird.
>
But do they have dialects? Many other birds do. See e.g.
Marler, P., & M. Tamura (1962). "Song dialects in three populations
of the white-crowned sparrow". Condor 64: 368–377
SkyEyes
> I know others here had to have noticed this as well so maybe some of
> sane individuals make the choice to remain ignorant about science in
> to remain ignorant, many seem to become angry and beligerant when the
> facts are presented. Almost like a three year old covering there ears
> and shouting "la lal la I can't hear you" when they don't want to hear
> or do what you say. I really would like to understand what the real
> issue is here. What is the real motivation? I used to think it was
> fear of losing faith, but now I'm not so sure. Any ideas?
My take on all this is what they told me in the Conservative Baptist
church I grew up in: if evolution is factual and Genesis is only a
myth, then we can't trust the bible.
The bible is what sets for the fundamentalists' "recipe" for
salvation.
Therefore, effectively, evolution = no salvation.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
SkyEyes
> How do you like someone saying "I dont give a crap for your views, I
> am going to take your child and teach them their parents are stupid
> retards
<Shrug> Many fundamentalist parents want to do *exactly that* with
the children of rationalists.
>who should be prevented from voting
See also: Tea Baggers
> while I the great educated
> man decides what you learn and when and how." Maybe you could start a
> castrate the dummy program.
I have a rusty grapefruit spoon I would be happy to donate to the
program!
> Any person who doesnt have at least a
> masters degree gets castrated or spayed so the stupid cant repoduce.
Well, we're hot on the heels of having 7 billion humans on the planet
*right now*. We're going to need to use *some* criterion, at some
point in the near future, to keep many of them from breeding.
Intellligence would certainly get my vote.
SkyEyes
> Prevent them from voting was perhaps an intemperate joke, but damn you
> have some nice ideas. I should steal them and send them to the EAC, they
> will give me a nice position there :-D
I have a position open as "Assistant Grapefruit Spoon Sharpener."
Interested?
Robert Camp
Have there been sociological studies done? My instinct is to accept the
DNA evidence, but I wonder how prevalent that reaction would be.
> So as far as _reliability" is concerned, circumstantial evidence can
> be much, much more reliable than direct evidence. (it can of course
> also be much less reliable, depending on the evidence in question.
> Note that eyewitness evidence can of course also be circumstantial in
> many cases).
>
> Nonetheless, the distinction is still to some degree useful, with a
> (partly? apparently? superficially?) sound intuition behind it: Direct
> evidence does not need any further inferences IF it is true. So you
> can formulate two conditionals:
>
> IF what the eyewitness claimed he saw is true, the case is proven.
> EVEN IF the DNA (or any other circumstantial) evidence is true, the
> case is only proven if we accept in addition the set of inferences
> Y.
>
> This however is a question of degrees: Some propositions/evidence is
> closer to the "ultimate probandum" than other, requires more or less
> inferences. Fingerprints e.g. are less reliable than DNA, but
> marginally closer to the ultimate probandum than DNA, for instance.
Not sure why this would be. Are you saying this is because there's a
more obvious (at least to the layman) causal link between fingerprints
and some particular individual than there is with DNA evidence, or is
it more complex than that?
> Researchers at the forensic science service in the UK have developed
> this idea in the rather handy "hierarchy of propositions" which is
> very helpful in case analysis. (A hierarchy of propositions: deciding
> which level to address in casework, R Cook, Iw Evett, G Jackson, Pj
> Jones And J Lambert, Science & Justice 1998: 38(4): 231-240)
>
> While handy practically, I increasingly doubt that the distinction has
> nay content. It treat witnesses like cameras. In reality however, most
> perceptions are complex and often highly indirect inferences. " I saw
> the man in the red shirt stab the victim with a knife". Is that really
> what you _saw_? Or did your brain make highly sophisticated inferences
> based on your past experience with knifes, man and red shirts? If
> "direct evidence " were a meaningful term, witnesses should report
> something like Carnap's "protocol sentences": I had the impression of
> red in the lower left part of my visual field.
I'm fascinated by where, and if frankly, there is any meaningful
distinction to be drawn between eyewitness and circumstantial, direct
and indirect observation - at least as it relates to science. The lines
that (for our purposes) creationists derive are much more fuzzy than
they believe, depending, in the case of "direct," upon various filters
such as instrumentation, cognitive condition (a point you make above)
and a multitude of environmental factors (light levels, temperature
etc.).
It seems to me - and this is now straying off into epistemology - that
all knowledge: eyewitness, circumstantial etc., eventually comes down
to some sort of consensus requirement. If there are no others who share
my evaluation, it really doesn't matter whether I actually saw what I
say I saw, or the evidence really means what I say it means. I'm sure
there's a rich body of work on the subject that I'll now have to begin
to investigate.
Anyway, thanks for your comments.
RLC
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Apr 14, 12:48 am, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Prevent them from voting was perhaps an intemperate joke, but damn you
>> have some nice ideas. I should steal them and send them to the EAC, they
>> will give me a nice position there :-D
>
>I have a position open as "Assistant Grapefruit Spoon Sharpener."
>Interested?
>
where do i send my CV?
Kalkidas
news:8867006d-bd1f-48e2...@k33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On 14 Apr, 02:14, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
[snip]
>> My choice would be to say that since there are no surviving examples of
>> "proto-indo-european" there is no conclusive proof that it was really a
>> language. Some scholars have offered tentative reconstructions of its
>> vocabulary grammar and syntax, based on extrapolating from known
>> linguistic
>> change rates, but these are purely hypothetical pending the discovery of
>> an
>> actual manuscript. Therefore, the alternative, for instance, that
>> Sanskrit
>> is actually the root of the indo-european languages, is also an
>> acceptable
>> theory.
>>
>> Is that not reasonable?
>
> Well, yes and no. If we take your analogy serious, then in the case of
> the ToE, your issue would be if say the multiple genesis theories of
> Margulis or Hartman are correct. Even though they "technically" get
> rid of the notion of one single common ancestor, they are still
> perfectly main stream science and is .discussed as such. If eve proven
> true, no evolutionary biologist would lose a minute's sleep over it.
I don't really object to common ancestry, or natural selection for that
matter. The principal area of my objection to Darwinism, or neo-Darwinism,
is its claim that random, undirected genetic variation can over (mere)
geologic time scales "morph" any organism into any other organism.
Linguistically, this is like claiming that random changes in phonemes or
morphemes over time can be shown to have produced all current languages from
one or several ancestral languages. Perhaps a computer simulation can be
applied to Sanskrit to see if applying such a transform to it will
eventually produce English.
> Second, the reason that in linguistics both monogenesis and
> polygenesis are controversially discussed is that there is specific
> evidence against the monogenetic theory, it is not just as argument
> from "absence of evidence", In the biology setting, the equivalent
> would be finding species which have an additional acid in their DNA -
> would not totally rule out the single ancestor theory, but weaken it
> considerably. So far, no such clear inconsistency has been found in
> biology
The linguistic analogy suffers from one glaring defect, though. Language
change is not random or undirected. It is actually intelligently designed.
> Finally , even if we often can't prove in these contexts one theory,
> even in a weak sense of proof, we can regularly disprove proposals,
> and also often decide which of two competing proposals. In the
> language setting, this means even though the evidence for the proto-
> indo European language is weak, the Sanskri first "theory can be ruled
> out with a much higher level of confidence - several modern languages
> would look different if there had not been an alternative root from
> which Sanskrit itself developed, and within Sanskrit, the pattern of
> substrata also points to linguistic influences on Sanskrit from
> various source languages.
Maybe modern indo-european languages have endogenous retro-patois. ;-)
Burkhard
Yes, there are. in particular studies which investigated the so called
"CSI effect"
>
> > So as far as _reliability" is concerned, circumstantial evidence can
> > be much, much more reliable than direct evidence. (it can of course
> > also be much less reliable, depending on the evidence in question.
> > Note that eyewitness evidence can of course also be circumstantial in
> > many cases).
>
> > Nonetheless, the distinction is still to some degree useful, with a
> > (partly? apparently? superficially?) sound intuition behind it: Direct
> > evidence does not need any further inferences IF it is true. So you
> > can formulate two conditionals:
>
> > IF what the eyewitness claimed he saw is true, the case is proven.
> > EVEN IF the DNA (or any other circumstantial) evidence is true, the
> > case is only proven if we accept in addition the set of inferences
> > Y.
>
> > This however is a question of degrees: Some propositions/evidence is
> > closer to the "ultimate probandum" than other, requires more or less
> > inferences. Fingerprints e.g. are less reliable than DNA, but
> > marginally closer to the ultimate probandum than DNA, for instance.
>
> Not sure why this would be. Are you saying this is because there's a
> more obvious (at least to the layman) causal link between fingerprints
> and some particular individual than there is with DNA evidence, or is
> it more complex than that?
DNA can very easily be transferred. With FP, it is possible but very
rare and normally detectable. That means that if your fingerprint is
on a knife, we can directly infer that you handled it (but of course
not whether you stabbed the victim or removed it to give first aid).
With DNA, we have to make additional assumptions and inferences that
rule out e.g. your nurse putting it there after you donated blood the
last time, or that you gave your jacket to a charity shop where it was
bought by the perp, who carried the knife in the pocket etc. (that of
course assumes that the DNN was not extracted from a Fingerprint,
which is now possible)
<snip>
Robert Camp
Okay, that makes sense. I was looking for a legal methodology answer
when it was actually about operational considerations.
Thanks
RLC
Ron O
bpuharic
>
>I don't really object to common ancestry, or natural selection for that
>matter. The principal area of my objection to Darwinism, or neo-Darwinism,
>is its claim that random, undirected genetic variation can over (mere)
>geologic time scales "morph" any organism into any other organism.
and yet it's what's seen, via a testable mechanism
so your argument is that, because of the vedas and your deep belief in
astrology,
science is wrong.
>Linguistically, this is like claiming that random changes in phonemes or
>morphemes over time can be shown to have produced all current languages from
>one or several ancestral languages. Perhaps a computer simulation can be
>applied to Sanskrit to see if applying such a transform to it will
>eventually produce English.
hardly. natural selection has a mechanism: differential reproduction.
that can be tested. i realize religious fanatics such as yourself
prefer to stick with an idea that's failed for 3000 years to tell us
anything about nature, but SOME of us prefer evidence for our
'beliefs'.
>
Nick Keighley
> On 2010-04-14 10:02:16 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
> >news:2010041321235516807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
> >> On 2010-04-13 18:14:19 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
> >>>news:2010041317234816807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
> >>>> On 2010-04-13 16:36:18 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
> >>>>>news:2010041314490116807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
> >>>>>> On 2010-04-13 12:44:56 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
> >>>>>>>news:2010041311562416807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
> >>>>>>>> On 2010-04-13 10:24:29 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
> >>>>>>>>>news:36479671-c502-4b58...@w17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> >>> The situation with the actual genetic code is far worse. The only DNA
> >>> samples we have are from relatively modern organisms. Yet, Darwinian
> >>> evolution is supposed to encompass lengths of time orders of magnitude
> >>> greater than what scholars think is the age of written language.
>
> >> Well, that's a continued denial of uniformitarianisman mixed with an
> >> argument from incredulity - both pretty hard landings to stick such that
> >> anyone knowledgeable is going to give you a decent score.
for technical difficulty?
the amount of DNA we share with chimps
the fact that the relationship of shared DNA forms a tree
read this
www.amazon.com/o/asin/0465053130/mockerybird/ref=nosim
<snip>
Burkhard
I think it is somewhere in between. Distance is "measured" by the
inference steps necessary to reach the "ultimate probandum", the thing
that needs in law to be proven. If an eyewitness saw Paul stab Mary
with a knife, it "seems" that there are few inferences to "Assault
with a deadly weapon". If the only thing we have are Paul's
fingerprints on the knife that is lodged in Mary, we know that he
handled the knife, but need further inferences to "he stabbed her",
as he might also have tried to pull it out to help her. If a DNA
expert reports that Paul's DNA is on the knife, we know even less -
just that there is a match. But we need further inferences to argue
that he even handled the knife, let alone used it for stabbing. It
might just be that the murderer had only shaken hands with Paul before
using the knife to stab Mary, transferring Paul's DNA onto the
knife.
Burkhard
This is just on point, the documentary will be very interesting to see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8620272.stm
One of the things it will show is just how much the witnesses talking
to each other changed their memory.
Steven L.
"bpuharic" <wf...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vepds5la5m3qmhkrf...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:55:00 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I don't really object to common ancestry, or natural selection for that
> >matter. The principal area of my objection to Darwinism, or neo-Darwinism,
> >is its claim that random, undirected genetic variation can over (mere)
> >geologic time scales "morph" any organism into any other organism.
>
> and yet it's what's seen, via a testable mechanism
It's seen over human time scales, in which few new species have
appeared.
So the claim that these mechanisms account for all the diversity of life
seen over billions of years involves an enormous amount of
extrapolation. We take what's been seen in the last 100 years and
extrapolate it to billions of years.
Yet the history of science includes other examples where long-range
extrapolation turned out to be wrong, due to unforeseen factors.
-- Steven L.
Nick Keighley
> "bpuharic" <w...@comcast.net> wrote in message
look at the complete failure of geology and astronomy
Robert Camp
> On Apr 15, 12:35�am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2010-04-14 12:41:14 -0700, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> said:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 14, 7:01�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2010-04-14 10:02:16 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
<snip>
Fascinating. I will follow it. Thanks.
RLC
SkyEyes
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:27:39 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 14, 12:48 am, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> Prevent them from voting was perhaps an intemperate joke, but damn you
> >> have some nice ideas. I should steal them and send them to the EAC, they
> >> will give me a nice position there :-D
>
> >I have a position open as "Assistant Grapefruit Spoon Sharpener."
> >Interested?
>
> where do i send my CV?
You can't send a CV, because as we all know the EAC doesn't exist.
<wink, wink> But don't worry. I'll vouch for you.
Be sure you have your rubber chicken and secret decoder ring with you
when you report for your first day of work. Out of Tucson, go south
down the 7th arroyo until you reach the crested saguaro growing in the
middle of the ring of mesquites. (If you reach the Killer Bee
Research Facility, you've gone too far.) Wait there for the black
helicopter to arrive.
Brenda
John Wilkins
<94767325-d3f0-4bd4...@i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 5:26 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:27:39 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Apr 14, 12:48 am, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >> Prevent them from voting was perhaps an intemperate joke, but damn you
> > >> have some nice ideas. I should steal them and send them to the EAC, they
> > >> will give me a nice position there :-D
> >
> > >I have a position open as "Assistant Grapefruit Spoon Sharpener."
> > >Interested?
> >
> > where do i send my CV?
>
> You can't send a CV, because as we all know the EAC doesn't exist.
> <wink, wink> But don't worry. I'll vouch for you.
There's no need to send a CV, because the EAC, which doesn't exist,
already would have a complete dossier on you and everyone you know.
>
> Be sure you have your rubber chicken and secret decoder ring with you
> when you report for your first day of work. Out of Tucson, go south
> down the 7th arroyo until you reach the crested saguaro growing in the
> middle of the ring of mesquites. (If you reach the Killer Bee
> Research Facility, you've gone too far.) Wait there for the black
> helicopter to arrive.
You forgot that he has to find the password of the day under the big
rock. They'll wipe his memory otherwise.
magicus
wrote:
Would they wipe it w/ that 'flashy thing' from MIB?
ciao,
f
( I am still waiting for my rubber chicken and secret decoder ring...)
--
aa #2301
Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian anymore than going to the
garage makes you a car.
-– Dr. Laurence J. Peter
Nic
wrote:
not to mention peace studies
josephus
> On Apr 12, 10:23 pm, Godevodevo<tazzer4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I know others here had to have noticed this as well so maybe some of
>> you can understand better than I. Why do so many otherwise normal,
>> sane individuals make the choice to remain ignorant about science in
>> general, including of course, evolution? And not only do they choose
>> to remain ignorant, many seem to become angry and beligerant when the
>> facts are presented. Almost like a three year old covering there ears
>> and shouting "la lal la I can't hear you" when they don't want to hear
>> or do what you say. I really would like to understand what the real
>> issue is here. What is the real motivation? I used to think it was
>> fear of losing faith, but now I'm not so sure. Any ideas?
>
>
> 1. How much science do you need to know to truly understand the theory
> of evolution (leaving abiogenesis out of it)
> 2. Is there a good explanation for abiogenesis, or is it more wishful
> thinking than science fact. Without a start TOE is irrelevant.
> 3. How many adults of a certain age have only a high school education,
> and did that include theory of evolution ? I am thinking people in
> high school from 1985 - 1970.
> 4.Who likes hearing that your beliefs are a simple minded pile of
> crap. ? look at this forum, you tube video comments and
> alt.talk.creation for examples. Starting a conversation with "you are
> really dumb and your views are just crap" does not tend to lead to a
> good exchange.
> 5. Bible literalists can not accept evolution because it makes their
> Bible untrue and therefore destroys God, and hope of salvation and an
> afterlife.
> 6. How do you PROVE , that a series of fossils are actually in the
> sequence and are not simply co-existing animals found by chance ?
> 7. A figure often mentioned is that 99% of all living species are now
> extinct. Are there actually fossils that demonstrate this or did
> someone make some guesses or just pull a number out his ass ?
> 8. How many articles are published in general interest magazines that
> present science in simple , easy to understand terms for those without
> a college degree. I mean magazines like popular science, popular
> mechanics and that sort of thing ?
> 9 I have seen comments from scientists that its not worth writing for
> the general public, thay are too dumb to understand it, and the
> bastards vote down money to do (whatever), only people with a PhD
> should have a say in these things , they know best. Thats why the Face
> on Mars, ancient astronouts etc get started.
> 10, are there really many mistakes in the textbooks. ? Haekles embryo
> pictures keep getting mentioned. If they are in error how many
> science people have written the publisher to offer a correction ?
>
> These are questions I regularly get asked by friends trying to keep up
> with their kids or grandkids homework. When they look at some of the
> books they see a bunch of assertions without what they see as facts.
> They see people at school board meeting who seem to be so impressed
> with themselves that it comes across as "trust me on this - is true".
> At times I have trouble disagreeing , and simply suggest that you
> assume good faith to start and assume a peer reviewed article gets
> culled if the facts are actually not present.
>
> Places like Discovery Institute, Institute for Creation Research,
> Answers in Genesis understand the psychology and I believe will win in
> the high schools, at least in some states, because to many people they
> seem far more trustworthy than some scientist they can barely
> understand.
>
> That my opinion :)
>
I was working the problems in Julian Green's "sperical astronomy" I
read and did a double take.
X^3 -2AX^2 +APX -2A^2P = 0
the text said there were 3 REAL roots.
(X-2A)(X^2+AP) has one real and two imaginary roots.
it was the bridge to his solutions of Newtons orbits. It was
wrong. the logic did not need this bridge. I would expect that to
be a major fault in the book.
It really looks like someone kludged that bridge. a student maybe.
as for the rest of the book it worked as advertised, it was relativistic
astronomy.
josephus
--
I go sailing in the summer
and look at stars in the winter
Its not what you know that gets you in trouble
Its what you know that aint so. -- Josh Billings
bpuharic
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>"bpuharic" <wf...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:vepds5la5m3qmhkrf...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:55:00 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >I don't really object to common ancestry, or natural selection for that
>> >matter. The principal area of my objection to Darwinism, or neo-Darwinism,
>> >is its claim that random, undirected genetic variation can over (mere)
>> >geologic time scales "morph" any organism into any other organism.
>>
>> and yet it's what's seen, via a testable mechanism
>
>It's seen over human time scales, in which few new species have
>appeared.
>
>So the claim that these mechanisms account for all the diversity of life
>seen over billions of years involves an enormous amount of
>extrapolation. We take what's been seen in the last 100 years and
>extrapolate it to billions of years.
we don't 'extrapolate' evolution. this isn't like we have 5 g of salt
and, in a billion years we'll have 5000. we have a mechanism that
produces change. it's not an 'extrapolation' to say that a mechanism
that causes change causes change.
i dont think you know what 'extrapolate' means.
>
bpuharic
and the robust success of creationism!
>
>
Steven L.
"Nick Keighley" <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c15a5a43-8327-4729...@30g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
There have been several failures, such as the failure of several comets
to follow their predicted orbits. (This was later found to be due to
jets outgassing from the comet, nudging it out of its orbit; or by
explosions of steam on the comet's surface, causing it to split in two.)
I'm not defending creationism.
I'm simply pointing out that the "error bars" of any hypothesis increase
dramatically as you expand the time scale. Buy the time we go back to
considering such questions as the evolution of the genetic code 2
billion years ago, all we have are hypotheses without much evidence.
The fossil record is clear that evolution occurred.
But whether we have accounted for all the mechanisms, based on our
observations since Darwin? That's less than one ten-millionth of the
total time since life began on Earth.
-- Steven L.
David Hare-Scott
> On 2010-04-14 10:02:16 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
>
>> news:2010041321235516807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
>>> On 2010-04-13 18:14:19 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
>>>
>>>> news:2010041317234816807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
>>>>> On 2010-04-13 16:36:18 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> news:2010041314490116807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
>>>>>>> On 2010-04-13 12:44:56 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> news:2010041311562416807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
>>>>>>>>> On 2010-04-13 10:24:29 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> news:36479671-c502-4b58...@w17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> The situation with the actual genetic code is far worse. The only
>>>> DNA samples we have are from relatively modern organisms. Yet,
>>>> Darwinian evolution is supposed to encompass lengths of time
>>>> orders of magnitude greater than what scholars think is the age of
>>>> written language.
>>>
>>> Well, that's a continued denial of uniformitarianisman mixed with an
>>> argument from incredulity - both pretty hard landings to stick such
>>> that anyone knowledgeable is going to give you a decent score.
>>
>> complexity of dealing with evidence. You can interpret evidence
>> according to it if you wish (it makes for easier reasoning) but by
> legitimate expression of disbelief. But disbelief can be either
> well-founded or not. Requiring, and evaluating, evidence proportional
> to the degree of incredibility of the claim is the beginning of a
> legitimate argument.
>
> Anticipating your reply - I would simply say that denying the
> existence of the evidence is not the same as asking for and
> evaluating the evidence.
>
>> In any case, it again misses the point about whether (and by what
>>> logic) we should assume that there were some barriers that
>>> prevented the contemporary evolutionary mechanisms with which we
>>> are familiar from working in the past.
>>
>> The alternative is to assume there are no barriers. But that is also
>> a naturalistic assumption designed to simplify dealing with evidence.
>
> No, it's an assumption based upon loads of evidence in favor, and lack
> of evidence against.
>
>> But
>> don't claim the evidence *supports* it, rather, it supports a certain
>> interpretation of evidence. It's also a trade-off that gets
>> increasingly unreliable over time.
>
> It's not about time. It's about the volume and quality of the data. In
> the case of evolution the volume is overwhelming and both the volume
> and quality, unsurprisingly, do diminish the more millions of years we
> retreat into the record. But that is only a problem for fine-grained
> distinctions and questions as to the technicalities of mechanisms, not
> for the overarching theoretical foundations. Evolution happens,
> speciation happens, common descent is real and there is simply no
> scientific question about that.
>
>>>>> At that point, as I see it, my choices are,
>>>>> a) offer evidence that such processes cannot account for the kind
>>>>> of change I don't accept, or,
>>>>> b) trust the consensus of those who've investigated those
>>>>> processes much more thoroughly than I
>>>>> However, if I instead choose,
>>>>> c) continue to disbelieve the consensus of those who know, while
>>>>> at the same time believing that my perspective is scientifically
>>>>> correct ....wouldn't people be justified in calling my position a
>>>>> misunderstanding
>>>>> of the issue?
>>>>
>>>> My choice would be to say that since there are no surviving
>>>> examples of "proto-indo-european" there is no conclusive proof
>>>> that it was really a language. Some scholars have offered
>>>> tentative reconstructions of its vocabulary grammar and syntax,
>>>> based on extrapolating from known linguistic
>>>> change rates, but these are purely hypothetical pending the
>>>> discovery of an
>>>> actual manuscript. Therefore, the alternative, for instance, that
>>>> Sanskrit
>>>> is actually the root of the indo-european languages, is also an
>>>> acceptable
>>>> theory.
>>>>
>>>> Is that not reasonable?
>>>
>>> ancestral candidate over the other. But that's not the case.
>>
>> Well I hope you're not going to claim that neo-Darwinism can get
>> away with "explaining" the origin of species without giving any
>> specific lineages?
>
> Of course I am, or do you think that in order to claim that plate
> tectonics can explain the shifting face of the earth through time I
> have to be able to provide specific, time-stamped, geographic tracks
> for each and every continent?
>
> Do you also suppose that if I don't know the names of my ancestors 100
> generations removed that means I didn't have any?
>
>>> - You suggested, in the process of insisting that you do not
>>> misinterpret the science, that "microevolution" was acceptable
>>> while "macroevolution" was not.
>>
>> Yes, microevolution is directly observable, whereas 150 years of
>> Darwinism is not nearly enough time to observe alleged
>> macroevolution.
>
> Not that such is required, but in fact it has been observed in that
> time.
>> Such evidence
>> as there is is entirely circumstantial, and subject to the
>> assumptions discussed above, such as uniformitarianism, and
>> no-barrier.
>
> Talk to Burkhard about circumstantial evidence. My guess (and I don't
> know for sure) is that he will not hold it in such low regard as you
> evidence for which there is no personal account available - and this
> is the situation for nearly all of the investigations, not just
> scientific, that ever get conducted. If there was something
> inadmissable about circumstantial evidence for scientific
> investigations we would know virtually nothing.
>
>>> - I offered a hypothetical (which bent over backwards in allowing
>>> that there might be something analogous to "higher level"
>>> development in evolution when in fact no one suggests that any
>>> representative of any taxonomic rank wasn't itself at one time a
>>> simple transitional form) in order to demonstrate that your
>>> distinction was arbitrary and counter to the evidence.
>>> - In reply you have chosen to argue against specific
>>> macroevolutionary (or macrolinguistic if we follow the
>>> hypothetical) forms, rather than respond to the issue - which is
>>> that there is plenty of corroborating evidence to suggest that the
>>> evolutionary mechanisms we observe producing change in present
>>> forms are powerfully explanatory and predictive for past forms. Your
>>> distinctions, your qualms about "extrapolating that to the
>>> entire biota," represent a misunderstanding of the science.
>>
>> My standard of evidence for claims about impersonal, chance,
>> undirected processes alleged to occur over time becomes stricter in
>> proportion to the time involved. You say that's a misunderstanding
>> of science. I say it's an understanding of the pitfalls of human
>> reasoning and the limitations of human knowledge.
>
> It's an illustration of the pitfalls of your reasoning. Don't tar
> naturalistic investigation with your misunderstandings. If you don't
> think scientific methodology goes out of its way to fold in humility
> and circumspection regarding the limitations of evidence and
> inference, then you either understand science less well than I
> thought, or your misunderstanding is convenient and situational (the
> latter of which, I suppose, is the point I've been making all along).
>
> RLC
I think you have made a sound case that K uses special rules for dismissing
aspects of evolution. What I find more interesting is that he doesn't give
an alternative explanation for bits he wants to selectively dismiss.
David
Robert Camp
> Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 2010-04-14 10:02:16 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
>>
>>> "Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2010041321235516807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
>>>> On 2010-04-13 18:14:19 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
>>>>
>>>>> "Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:2010041317234816807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
>>>>>> On 2010-04-13 16:36:18 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:2010041314490116807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
>>>>>>>> On 2010-04-13 12:44:56 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:2010041311562416807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
>>>>>>>>>> On 2010-04-13 10:24:29 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Godevodevo" <tazze...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:36479671-c502-4b58...@w17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
>>
Thanks. I will agree that it's frustrating, but probably no less for K.
I don't want to say that it's all about perspective, because there are
such things as correct and incorrect (and he's definitely incorrect on
this). But I do want to better understand the oppositions' perspective,
and at least Kalkidas is willing to examine his views and discuss the
issues to the degree that some of that understanding is available.
RLC
Steven L.
"Puppet_Sock" <puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b6d9383e-3ce5-4d2c...@i12g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 13, 12:23�am, Godevodevo <tazzer4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Why do so many otherwise normal,
> > sane individuals make the choice to remain ignorant about science in
> > general, including of course, evolution?
>
> That's easy. Because most folks are lazy. Learning is work.
> It interferes with whatever else one might be doing, like surfing
> the web, watching soap operas, etc.
No.
It's because they perceive science as overturning time-honored
institutions and beliefs without leading the way to adequate
substitutes.
Only a few scientists, like Ken Miller and Carl Sagan, have acknowledged
that this is a genuine problem rather than laughing at it.
When ordinary folks hear Dawkins say that the only purpose in life is to
fuck and spread your genes, they walk away. Because that's a ghastly
and depressing message that makes a mockery out of basic human rights.
Science has changed how we view ourselves in relation to the Universe,
how we view human consciousness, how we view sex, how we view just about
everything. And in the latest Gallup poll, something like 40% of
Americans said that enough is enough.
-- Steven L.
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> When ordinary folks hear Dawkins say that the only purpose in life is
> to fuck and spread your genes, they walk away. Because that's a
> ghastly and depressing message that makes a mockery out of basic
> human rights.
Did he say that? It doesn't seem consonant with what I've read and heard
from him.
>
> Science has changed how we view ourselves in relation to the Universe,
> how we view human consciousness, how we view sex, how we view just
> about everything. And in the latest Gallup poll, something like 40%
> of Americans said that enough is enough.
>
It feels as though you think that's a good thing. I know you're more
sophisticated, but it is kind of like Ray offering the US majority view
as evidence against evolution.
--
Mike.
Godevodevo
> "Puppet_Sock" <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Excellent point Steven. I had not really thought of it in that way.
Honestly, I was really suprised to see so many people who choose to
remain ignorant of the facts, but that reasoning at least gives them
an understandable emotional point. I guess it is difficult to
constantly re-evaluate your beliefs. I've been doing it for so long,
I guess I've just become accustomed to the cognitive dissonance
involved.
Kimberly
Walter Bushell
<1976ada7-8733-462d...@x3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> By now we know just how misleading eyewitness evidence can be (again,
> including confessions) and we had numerous cases where indirect or
> circumstantial evidence in the form of DNA allowed us to infer with
> near certainty that a miscarriage of justice had occurred and the
> witnesses had been wrong. Simple check for your intuition: The
> prosecution says the accused's DNA has been extracted from sperm in
> the victim's vagina. The accused says he never had intercourse with
> her. Do you go with the circumstantial DNA evidence or the direct
> witness statement?
Given the propensity of the police to hire crime labs that will give
them what they want, that's a tough one.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Walter Bushell
Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 03:04:19 -0700, Nick Keighley wrote:
>
> > [snip context]
> >
> > Languages hybridise in a horrendous fashion. Consider pidgeons in
> > Borneo. I believe there is a pigeon dialect spoken by Norwegian and
> > Russian fishermen.
>
> I believe you mean "pidgin" dialects. To the best of my knowledge,
> pigeon is spoken primarily by pigeons, and probably an occaional
> mockingbird.
The mockingbird uses pigeon only for satyrical porpoises.
D9000
There are two issues here; the evidence of the lab says the sample is
that of the perp, not from whence it came. Unless the lab can be shown
to have previous in misidentifying samples, we must assume the DNA is
that of the accused.
The provenance of the sample is down to the police surgeon (presumably).
So, we are still comparing witness statements: that of the police and
the victim, who say the sample came from the victim's body, and that of
the perp, who says it didn't. If I were judging the case (I never got to
judge cases that interesting, myself) I would need to know a lot more
about the witnesses before I could reach a conclusion, but certainly the
identification of the DNA sample would carry a great deal of weight, and
place the accused's statement in some doubt.
From personal experience I would say that, when making statements to the
court, on average, the police lie about 30% of the time, the victims
about 45% (higher if the victim has any personal relationship to the
accused) and the accused about 90%.
D9000
> In article <pan.2010.04.14....@earthlink.net>,
> Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 03:04:19 -0700, Nick Keighley wrote:
>>
>>> [snip context]
>>>
>>> Languages hybridise in a horrendous fashion. Consider pidgeons in
>>> Borneo. I believe there is a pigeon dialect spoken by Norwegian and
>>> Russian fishermen.
>>
>> I believe you mean "pidgin" dialects. To the best of my knowledge,
>> pigeon is spoken primarily by pigeons, and probably an occaional
>> mockingbird.
Actually, he means creoles. A pidgin is a simplified version of one
language (as in pidgin English), a creole a mixture of two or more.
Argument continues as to whether English is a pidgin or a creole.
>
> The mockingbird uses pigeon only for satyrical porpoises.
I thought it used it to mock turtle doves.
Burkhard
> > Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >> By now we know just how misleading eyewitness evidence can be (again,
> >> including confessions) and we had numerous cases where indirect or
> >> circumstantial evidence in the form of DNA allowed us to �infer with
> >> near certainty that a miscarriage of justice had occurred and the
> >> witnesses had been wrong. Simple check for your intuition: The
> >> prosecution says the accused's DNA has been extracted from sperm in
> >> the victim's vagina. The accused says he never had intercourse with
> >> her. Do you go with the circumstantial DNA evidence or the direct
> >> witness statement?
>
> > Given the propensity of the police to hire crime labs that will give
> > them what they want, that's a tough one.
>
> There are two issues here; the evidence of the lab says the sample is
> that of the perp, not from whence it came. Unless the lab can be shown
> to have previous in misidentifying samples, we must assume the DNA is
> that of the accused.
>
> The provenance of the sample is down to the police surgeon (presumably).
> So, we are still comparing witness statements: that of the police and
> the victim, who say the sample came from the victim's body, and that of
> the perp, who says it didn't. If I were judging the case (I never got to
> judge cases that interesting, myself)
Pity! Having run courses for judges on evidence evalation, I'd say you
are rather ahead of the game, and by quite some margin ;o).
> I would need to know a lot more
> about the witnesses before I could reach a conclusion, but certainly the
> identification of the DNA sample would carry a great deal of weight, and
> place the accused's statement in some doubt.
Ideally, you'd also ask questions about the type of DNA analysis that
was used, since that too can influence the chance of third party
contamination (LCN DNA obviously the worst in that respect) so yes, my
example was an oversimplification.
>
> From personal experience I would say that, when making statements to the
> court, on average, the police lie about 30% of the time, the victims
> about 45% (higher if the victim has any personal relationship to the
> accused) and the accused about 90%.
What, people lying under oath? How shocking! :o)
Burkhard
Burkhard
> > In article <pan.2010.04.14.22.54.05.928...@earthlink.net>,
And the rare Welsh rabbit.
TomS
<DdSdnahpK9N4jUHW...@bt.com>, D9000 stated..."
>
>Walter Bushell wrote:
>> In article <pan.2010.04.14....@earthlink.net>,
>> Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 03:04:19 -0700, Nick Keighley wrote:
>>>
>>>> [snip context]
>>>>
>>>> Languages hybridise in a horrendous fashion. Consider pidgeons in
>>>> Borneo. I believe there is a pigeon dialect spoken by Norwegian and
>>>> Russian fishermen.
>>>
>>> I believe you mean "pidgin" dialects. To the best of my knowledge,
>>> pigeon is spoken primarily by pigeons, and probably an occaional
>>> mockingbird.
>
>Actually, he means creoles. A pidgin is a simplified version of one
>language (as in pidgin English), a creole a mixture of two or more.
>Argument continues as to whether English is a pidgin or a creole.
Among some linguists, the distinction between pidgin and creole is
that a creole is a complete language, and can be one's mother language,
while a pidgin is a makeshift means of communicating between people
who do not share a common language. Many linguists consider that a
creole develops from a pidgin.
And it is generally recognized that English is neither a pidgin nor
a creole, but a highly derived form of Anglo-Saxon with a strong
Norman French influence on the vocabulary.
>
>>
>> The mockingbird uses pigeon only for satyrical porpoises.
>
>I thought it used it to mock turtle doves.
>
>
--
---Tom S.
Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold,
with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead
The Crime of Galileo (1976) by Giorgio De Santillana, p. 167
Steven L.
"Godevodevo" <tazze...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ac2e49c6-de02-4982...@r10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
The trouble with living with cognitive dissonance indefinitely is that
eventually it may rupture. That's particularly a problem for thoughtful
folks like yourself. And it's a problem for the very foundation of this
nation.
Our revered Declaration of Independence states that it is *self evident*
that human beings come into this world with the rights to life, liberty,
and pursuit of happiness as their natural birthright, an idea borrowed
from Rousseau and the Age of Reason. Governments have attempted to
abrogate those rights throughout history, and even our Government's
track record on abrogating rights has been shameful at times. But those
rights are natural, not granted by governments.
Dawkins is diametrically opposed to all that. To him, human beings have
no natural rights. They are just another species of animal whose only
purpose in life is to spread their genes. Thus if human beings have
rights like the right of Dawkins to publish his books without
censorship, it's because a benevolent government granted them those
rights as a favor.
In that sense, Dawkins is attacking the very underpinnings of the
founding of the United States. He's a European, where people never had
any rights to begin with, and which my own family had to flee from for
that very reason. Those rights were indeed granted to Europeans,
slowly, over time, by more benevolent governments. But the United States
is a revolutionary society that was founded on the principle that rights
aren't granted, they can only be taken away.
In that sense, Dawkins' atheism (more than his science) is a stealth
attack on my country. And I don't like it.
-- Steven L.
D9000
> "On Sat, 1 May 2010 12:30:48 +0100, in article
> <DdSdnahpK9N4jUHW...@bt.com>, D9000 stated..."
>>
>> Walter Bushell wrote:
>>> In article <pan.2010.04.14....@earthlink.net>,
>>> Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 03:04:19 -0700, Nick Keighley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [snip context]
>>>>>
>>>>> Languages hybridise in a horrendous fashion. Consider pidgeons in
>>>>> Borneo. I believe there is a pigeon dialect spoken by Norwegian
>>>>> and Russian fishermen.
>>>>
>>>> I believe you mean "pidgin" dialects. To the best of my knowledge,
>>>> pigeon is spoken primarily by pigeons, and probably an occaional
>>>> mockingbird.
>>
>> Actually, he means creoles. A pidgin is a simplified version of one
>> language (as in pidgin English), a creole a mixture of two or more.
>> Argument continues as to whether English is a pidgin or a creole.
>
> Among some linguists, the distinction between pidgin and creole is
> that a creole is a complete language, and can be one's mother
> language, while a pidgin is a makeshift means of communicating
> between people who do not share a common language. Many linguists
> consider that a creole develops from a pidgin.
Linguists agree even more rarely than creationists. Linguists with
different native languages, even less so.
> And it is generally recognized that English is neither a pidgin nor
> a creole, but a highly derived form of Anglo-Saxon with a strong
> Norman French influence on the vocabulary.
And the difference between that and a pidgin/creole is what, exactly?,
given that 'highly derived', in this context, means 'greatly
simplified'.
D9000
I did one of those courses ... they didn't actually hand out marks, but
I must have passed, given that they let me sit on the magistrate's
bench. (Or maybe not, given the chronic shortage of lay magistrates). It
was mostly car crime, D&D, and possession of a controlled substance.
Anything juicier gets sent to a proper judge, who are all lawyers.
>> I would need to know a lot more
>> about the witnesses before I could reach a conclusion, but certainly
>> the identification of the DNA sample would carry a great deal of
>> weight, and place the accused's statement in some doubt.
>
> Ideally, you'd also ask questions about the type of DNA analysis that
> was used, since that too can influence the chance of third party
> contamination (LCN DNA obviously the worst in that respect) so yes, my
> example was an oversimplification.
I never got taught that: DNA forensics was still in its infancy then,
and certainly not used by the local plod for nicking teenage car
thieves.
>> From personal experience I would say that, when making statements to
>> the court, on average, the police lie about 30% of the time, the
>> victims about 45% (higher if the victim has any personal
>> relationship to the accused) and the accused about 90%.
>
> What, people lying under oath? How shocking! :o)
Judging, at any level, renders one extremely cynical about society in
general (and policemen in particular).
Burkhard
And whose training in evidence evaluation is, generally speaking,
zero. Evidence is a marginal subject at the best of times, and deal
almost always exclusively with procedural issues. Only very few
schools offer selective courses in the actual interpretation and
evaluation of evidence. To recruit most of our judiciary from the
ranks of successful commercial law practitioners also doesn't help.
But don't get me started on my favourite axe to grind.
Robert Camp
Hmm, I have to wonder how.
> Our revered Declaration of Independence states that it is *self
> evident* that human beings come into this world with the rights to
> life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as their natural birthright, an
> idea borrowed from Rousseau and the Age of Reason. Governments have
> attempted to abrogate those rights throughout history, and even our
> Government's track record on abrogating rights has been shameful at
> times. But those rights are natural, not granted by governments.
That's a fairly arbitrary distinction, if "natural" in this context
even means anything. If we posses inherent rights it's only as a result
of the commonality of that perspective (others see it the same way).
Any rights that can be described as such derive ultimately from a
shared subjective morality, and are usually codified formally by some
sort of governmental body. Thus I don't see that "granted naturally" or
by government action are mutually exclusive.
Or are you implying the existence of some sort of objective
(metaphysical) morality?
> Dawkins is diametrically opposed to all that. To him, human beings
> have no natural rights. They are just another species of animal whose
> only purpose in life is to spread their genes. Thus if human beings
> have rights like the right of Dawkins to publish his books without
> censorship, it's because a benevolent government granted them those
> rights as a favor.
Whatever Dawkins' perspective on the subject of natural vs. granted
rights, it is a mischaracterization of his position to imply what you
have about "purpose in life." He has spoken often about how our ability
to reason allows us to invest our lives with much more meaning than the
simple spreading of genes. Your dislike of Dawkins is twisting your
arguments.
> In that sense, Dawkins is attacking the very underpinnings of the
> founding of the United States. He's a European, where people never had
> any rights to begin with, and which my own family had to flee from for
> that very reason. Those rights were indeed granted to Europeans,
> slowly, over time, by more benevolent governments. But the United
> States is a revolutionary society that was founded on the principle
> that rights aren't granted, they can only be taken away.
I think that's a particularly parochial point of view. Governments have
always been an evolutionary reflection of time and place. Romans could
at one time walk far from their homeland secure in the knowledge that
it was their "right" to remain unmolested lest the local powers incur
the wrath of Rome. My point is that the U.S. is an evolutionary
advancement, and a good one, but it's not an ultimate end.
In any case, your argument about Dawkins is hysterical (either
definition applies). Dawkins is, and has long been, a supporter of most
of the fundamental ideals the U.S. stands for (if not always
contemporary foreign policy). I can't even really come close to parsing
the logic involved in assuming his atheism (which is the same as that
of many U.S. citizens) is an attack on anything resembling the
foundations of this country. This rant appears to derive more from your
unique perspective on rights than on anything Dawkins says or does.
Is American atheism an attack on America as well?
RLC
(By the way, I never did get the connection here with living with
cognitive dissonance. Isn't that something of which we would accuse
theists more so than atheists?)
Walter Bushell
<ab60016c-3e3e-41ef...@24g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
What about random criminal who are getting breaks from the prosecution
or police for their testimony?
And every so often we hear of a lab being caught in just reporting what
the police want to hear.
Walter Bushell
"D9000" <alyc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Walter Bushell wrote:
> > In article <pan.2010.04.14....@earthlink.net>,
> > Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 03:04:19 -0700, Nick Keighley wrote:
> >>
> >>> [snip context]
> >>>
> >>> Languages hybridise in a horrendous fashion. Consider pidgeons in
> >>> Borneo. I believe there is a pigeon dialect spoken by Norwegian and
> >>> Russian fishermen.
> >>
> >> I believe you mean "pidgin" dialects. To the best of my knowledge,
> >> pigeon is spoken primarily by pigeons, and probably an occaional
> >> mockingbird.
>
> Actually, he means creoles. A pidgin is a simplified version of one
> language (as in pidgin English), a creole a mixture of two or more.
> Argument continues as to whether English is a pidgin or a creole.
AIUI, a pidgin is a sublanguage with limited expressive capability, and
without grammatical structure using words from several languages usually
when people of differing languages have to interact, as on plantations,
et cetera. There children speak a creole which is a fully formed
language.
>
> >
> > The mockingbird uses pigeon only for satyrical porpoises.
>
> I thought it used it to mock turtle doves.
No then mockingbirds use mockturtlease.
D9000
Plea bargaining is not officially allowed under UK law, but there have
been cases of the plod writing off a good chunk of their unsolved files
by lumping them on some idiot who will list them under 'other offences
to be taken into consideration'. (The idea being that the cops will 'put
in a good word for him'. Alas for the idiot, judges and juries were
never in on the deal). The practice has declined since courts were
allowed to hear the accused's previous form.
> And every so often we hear of a lab being caught in just reporting
> what the police want to hear.
I think that comes under the 30% above. It's known in the trade as
'fitting the bastard up'.