The Dixie Challenge....

Again, for the umpteenth time. Just because absolute knowledge is impossible doesn't mean all ideas are equal.

Some ideas are epistemologically sound, some are not.

And again, for the umpteenth time, you can't determine "soundness" or "weight" or "validity" or "support" or "any other synonym" if you aren't basing it on absolution. At some point, an absolute determination has to be made with regard to validity, weight, support, to make this statement. It absolutely defies logic to claim that we don't know anything absolutely, yet we have determined this is valid and that isn't. Are you just too wrapped up in your own rhetoric to understand that most simplistic point?

You keep throwing out the big words and tapdancing around logic. Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge, and has nothing to do with scientific principles, theories, or methods. You want to combine philosophy with science and create a dichotomous apparatus so you can prop up ET while refuting ID. Apparently you think people are so dumb they can't see this, especially if you throw in a few words no one is familiar with.
 
How can science reveal this if science can make no determination? I don't get that! You keep telling me, we don't have 'absolute knowledge' yet, you continue to establish 'absoluteness' with what science can reveal. If there is no absolute knowledge, there is no "empirical evidence", it's impossible for it to exist because our knowledge (which any empirical evidence would be based on) is not "absolute" ...as you have argued.

Absolute rubbish.

You are essentially saying... if we cannot know something without reproach, without the slightest doubt, we cannot know anything.

This is simple balderdash.

We cannot no anything without reproach due to the subjective nature of our knowledge, yet we can know what knowledge is better supported by experience, we can test knowledge for logical validity.

You are a walking, talking contradiction, Arnold. You say one thing in one post, and then say the complete opposite in the next,

No, you just don't seem to be capable of comprehending what I and AC have explained to you. You attempted to state I was contradicting myself in an above post, and I and AC both explained to you that both statements said the same thing.

ET is a theory dealing with speciation, and ID is a theory dealing with origin of life.

Sigh, no they don't, both deal with speciation, one states speciation occurred through design, the other through evolution through natural selection. Origins are dealt with by biogenesis and abiogenesis theories on both sides. Jeez, you don't even know your own argument.
 
Last edited:
And again, for the umpteenth time, you can't determine "soundness" or "weight" or "validity" or "support" or "any other synonym" if you aren't basing it on absolution.

ha ha ha And once again, absolution is when one's sins are absolved.

I have argued this point just a few seconds ago.

An 'absolute determination' as you describe is simply deciding which argument is the strongest, which is best supported and most logically valid.

If we decide that the sun will rise in the morning, we are making that decision based on previous experience but that doesn't make 'the sun will rise' absolute knowledge, knowledge beyond reproach. It is merely a prediction, no matter how reliable.

This isn't a particularly complex concept to understand, Dixie. If you struggle with this, no wonder you are attracted to the simplistic approach of religion...


You keep throwing out the big words and tapdancing around logic. Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge, and has nothing to do with scientific principles, theories, or methods.

Ha Ha Ha! This is my new signature. Science is the acquisition of knowledge through repeated observation. It has everything to do with epistemology, the study of the acquisition of knowledge. ha ha ha
 
Maybe this will help, Dixie....

"Teaching about the Epistemology of Science in School Science Classrooms: Case Studies of Teachers’ Experiences

There is evidence that many science teachers have limited expertise in teaching the epistemology of science (the ways in which knowledge claims in science are developed and justified). We examine the classroom talk of seven teachers as they use published lesson resources to teach about the development of scientific models in two concept areas (cell membrane structure and electromagnetism). Our aim is to provide recommendations for the content and form of professional development activities likely to support teachers’ effective uptake of these, and similar, teaching resources. We first provide a characterisation of the content of science-related classroom talk. Two distinctive lines of talk related to conceptual development can be identified in each of the Cell Membranes lessons, and an additional line of talk in each of the lessons focuses on the epistemology of science. Handling these distinctive classroom conversations was a new pedagogical challenge for these teachers. We then identify features of classroom talk likely to constrain or promote student learning about the epistemology of science. Several teachers supported student learning by making explicit statements about what students were intended to learn about the epistemology of science. Teachers also made links to other lessons to exemplify epistemic issues in a variety of science concept areas. The paper ends with a discussion of the design of continuing professional development activities to support teachers in introducing epistemic ideas in the science curriculum."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g2698j7356ulh80r/
 
Absolute rubbish.

You are essentially saying... if we cannot know something without reproach, without the slightest doubt, we cannot know anything.

This is simple balderdash.

No Arnold, that is what YOU are saying. That is what is meant by "absolute" knowledge, knowing without a doubt. You claimed this was impossible, yet you turn around and argue that we do know things are more or less valid than others, and this makes no sense. HOW can we know, if we can't know?

No, you just don't seem to be capable of comprehending what I and AC have explained to you. You attempted to state I was contradicting myself in an above post, and I and AC both explained to you that both statements said the same thing.

You and AC can "explain" all you like, you didn't show me where the statements weren't contradicting. One says, an argument is valid whether the premise supports the conclusion or not, the other says it can't be valid unless it does support the conclusion. These are contradictory statements, whether you and AC realize it in your world with no common sense or not.

ET is a theory dealing with speciation, and ID is a theory dealing with origin of life.

Sigh, no they don't, both deal with speciation, one states speciation occurred through design, the other through evolution through natural selection.

No, intelligent design has nothing to do with evolutionary changes in species. They are two completely different subjects. I have read and learned enough to understand, some evolution has certainly taken place. This doesn't mean there wasn't an intelligent designer, or that this entity didn't also create evolution. To assume that, you have to abandon all concepts of the scientific principles you hold so dear, and believe in myth.

Yes, I accused you of believing in myth... having faith in something... just like us religious wackos! The difference is, you have faith in science theory which supports your views. Rather than open your mind to all possibilities here, as I have, you continue to cling to your myths and illusions about what science hasn't been able to prove. It's easier for you to believe this watch just magically formed over billions of years, all the various components just happened to amass at the same point at the perfect time, and formed the watch. That takes considerable faith in absolute myth to believe. I think it is obvious someone made the watch, it's ridiculous and illogical to even think otherwise, and the questions should now be; who, why, and how?

But we can't really examine that possibility, because you've already made a predetermined judgement based on your disdain for God and religion, and you refuse to allow the very principles you base your faith in, to examine those possibilities.

It really speaks for the stark difference in our personal faiths, because I am not unwilling to allow the science to explore the possibilities, I am not afraid my faith and belief will be exposed as a fraud, and you obviously are. This is why you have constructed a contradicting philosophical and scientific argument to examine ID and ET with different criteria, through different lenses. You fully understand there is a Creator, and a very good chance you could be exposed as a fraud, and will have to admit you've believed in something that wasn't valid.... a myth. You are afraid that science might just provide that peice of evedience, through DNA or archeologic finding, that 'Adam and Eve' did exist, and that WAS how it all began. You should be afraid of this, because you know it's true. So, this is why we get the irrational, obsessive, non-stop contradictions and bluster from you. Fear of God.

We were created by intelligent design. If you want to argue that wasn't "God" as the Baptists believe in God... FINE! I have no problem with an argument against organized religious beliefs and conceptions of "God" in mortal men. I can separate myself from religious dogma long enough to understand the awe of our universe, and realize that it wasn't something that happened by mere chance and circumstance. I can't define "God" and don't need to, I can realize that something as magnificent as this universe, is the work of a designer... what? who? I have no answer, but something created this, it didn't just happen.

Perhaps the Creator was no "God" at all? Perhaps we are an extension of what the Creator once was? Maybe one day, NASA will drop off a microbial space project on a distant planet in another solar system, and demonstrate how your whole evolution theory works? The eventual humans created there can invent the Internet and debate whether they were "created" or whether they "evolved" from a single cell!
 
No Arnold, that is what YOU are saying. That is what is meant by "absolute" knowledge, knowing without a doubt. You claimed this was impossible, yet you turn around and argue that we do know things are more or less valid than others, and this makes no sense. HOW can we know, if we can't know?

Jeez, my five year old cousin would understand this, Dixie.

'Valid' is an term used in logic for an argument where the conclusion it makes is reached by the premises.

And although we cannot know anything beyond doubt, we can tell which ideas are 'better' because they are better supported by logic and evidence.

Its not rocket science....

You and AC can "explain" all you like, you didn't show me where the statements weren't contradicting. One says, an argument is valid whether the premise supports the conclusion or not, the other says it can't be valid unless it does support the conclusion. These are contradictory statements, whether you and AC realize it in your world with no common sense or not.

No they don't say that.... ha ha ha!

One said 'If the conclusion is supported by the premises, no matter how unsound the premises may be, the argument is valid.'

The other said: 'An argument is invalid if the conclusion cannot be reached from the premises.'

Both state that an argument is valid IF the conclusion can be reached from the premises...

Can't believe you've gone back to your old tactic of lying about things written on the same thread... ha ha ha

No, intelligent design has nothing to do with evolutionary changes in species.

You are so, so slow.

In simple terms, speciation is how different species came about.
ID claims that speciation came about by design.
ET claims that speciation came about by evolution through natural selection.

Origins are dealt with under notions of abiogenesis.

you have faith in science theory which supports your views.

I have belief in what is most epistemologically sound.

You're like a little kid, crying because no-one takes you seriously, not realising that if you produced a better argument, a testable hypothesis and supporting evidence that stands up to critical testing, people would take the idea seriously.

It's easier for you to believe this watch just magically formed over billions of years, all the various components just happened to amass at the same point at the perfect time, and formed the watch.

I've already explained how Paley's watchmaker analogy is based on the non-sequiter logic that what applies for things built by man applies for nature.

Address that point.

because you've already made a predetermined judgement based on your disdain for God and religion, and you refuse to allow the very principles you base your faith in, to examine those possibilities.

Produce an argument that is logically sound, supported by evidence and testable, and maybe you'd have a point.

Your whole argument in support of ID seems to surmount to 'You've just ignored ID.'

This is not true. I understand the notions of ID, have investigated them and found them wanting. I have produced ad nausium my reasoning behind this, and you have failed to address a single point, all you do is parrot 'you've just ignored ID.'

I haven't. Produce a better idea, one that is logically sound and supported by evidence.

I am not afraid my faith and belief will be exposed as a fraud, and you obviously are.

you just ignore any points brought up, and parrot 'you're ignoring the argument'.

I have addressed every point brought up about ID, from its logical make up to its component notions such as IC; and each time you have ignored my arguments.

So stop the pop-psychology, you are crap at it... and address the points I have made. Stop dodging the argument.

This is why you have constructed a contradicting philosophical and scientific argument to examine ID and ET with different criteria, through different lenses.

No I haven't. Both must be tested for logical validity, both must produce testable hypothesis, both must stand the test of empirical evidence. You are talking, once more, arse.

You fully understand there is a Creator, and a very good chance you could be exposed as a fraud, and will have to admit you've believed in something that wasn't valid.... a myth.

Ha ha ha ha! Enough of the pop-psychology. If you think you can expose me as a fraud, do it... I'm still waiting for you to produce an argument stronger than 'you just ignore ID'....

We were created by intelligent design.

Hey, Dixie. Here's a wacky idea. Why not, rather than just making statement, support this with argument?
 
'Valid' is an term used in logic for an argument where the conclusion it makes is reached by the premises.

How does it come to this conclusion without the knowledge being absolute? How can you determine or conclude something valid, if you don't know absolutely, that it is valid? It's like you are saying we're pretty sure we know, enough to say that we know for sure, but we really don't know for sure. It just makes no sense whatsoever.

And although we cannot know anything beyond doubt, we can tell which ideas are 'better' because they are better supported by logic and evidence.

It's a circular argument, you can't have "evidence" or "logic" if there is no absolute knowledge. We can't "tell" anything, because nothing is absolute, so it is impossible to "tell" if something is better, worse, or whatever... what is that based upon? Speculation? It can't be based on absolute knowledge, you've already stated this doesn't exist.

Produce an argument that is logically sound, supported by evidence and testable, and maybe you'd have a point.

I have, you simply mouth off your talking points you've obviously memorized by now, and keep going back to the philosophical perspective. You refuse to allow science to examine the theory of intelligent design fairly and objectively.

Both must be tested for logical validity, both must produce testable hypothesis, both must stand the test of empirical evidence.

No, they need not meet this standard, according to you. The argument is valid if the conclusion is supported by the premise. Also, your theory doesn't have any empirical evidence to support it. In fact, according to you, "empirical evidence" can't really exist, since we have no absolute knowledge, a prerequisite of anything deemed "empirical". There is no testable hypothesis involving human evolution that I am aware of, so your theory "falls at first hurdle" as well, it seems.

You've really tried to have your cake and eat it too here, and it just isn't going to stand the test of reason. If science is unable to prove, it can't prove evolution theory, and it can't disprove intelligent design. If we are unable to have absolute knowledge, we can not conclude that ET explains origin or ID refutes evolution. These are all subjective conclusions you've formed, because you are biased, prejudiced, and tainted by your own personal spiritual beliefs.

You worship the false God of Science. You religiously defend theories as fact, proclaim untestable hypothesis as valid, and use philosophy to refute anything that gets in the way of what you have faith in. Oh, it's indeed sacrilegious to you, for anyone to dare question your science deity when it comes to evolution... it's infallible and omnipotent. You can't allow it to be used to examine a "notion" like intelligent design, that might damage your religious beliefs in science, and show your theory to be inaccurate. So you parade around here using a bunch of big words, and acting like I am the one who doesn't understand, isn't smart enough, hasn't made a point, etc...

You are the one who hasn't presented a logical case. In fact, much of what you've said, has been contradicted in the next post you make, your "logic" is all over the board... science 'tells' us this or that... but science doesn't prove! We absolutely know this is valid and that is not, but we can't know anything absolutely. Einstein thought we should all abandon common sense, it was just prejudices talking... yet, isn't your own prejudice and "common sense" that has been used here to refute ID?
 
Dixie is simply impervious to reason. These are his argument tactics:

Ad Hominem
Straw Man
Appeal To Ridicule


...and many more Logical Fallacies.


The boy REVELS in such behavior. He evem makes fallacious claims on his "Quotes". He lacks the capacity to put forth a supported argument about the things he WANTS to be true, so he resorts to Negative Attention Seeking Behavior.

Pathetic.
 
Many children, when their parents fail to pay attention to them, act like little shits so mommy and daddy will take notice of their existence.

Dixie, lacking the intellectual capacity, and charisma, to capture people's interest, instead engages in irritating behavior so the adults will pay attention to him.

If you want to really piss him off, give him the attention he deserves...none.
 
Dixie, lacking the intellectual capacity, and charisma, to capture people's interest, instead engages in irritating behavior so the adults will pay attention to him.

More of those "snide remarks" from the one who thinks they mean you don't have an argument. I guess AC doesn't have an argument, but then, we can't rely on logic or common sense, the same rules don't apply to AC.
 
I agree AC him and toby are two reasons I dont visit this site much.

The other people here are pretty cool but they just fill too much of the conversation.
 
Dixie, your argument amounts to simply this:

We cannot know anything without knowing beyond reproach, ie for certain.

I have given examples ad nausium of why this is wrong (the sun rising, the criminologist etc).

Rather than me simply repeating thos, refer back to them, think about them and you'll have your answer....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top