Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Can you cite anything in any of those scientific texts that agrees with you that macro evolution does not occur, and the entire scientific world has got it wrong?
Try another ad hominem attack, I'm sure no one really noticed the evasion of my post last time.
"...scientific truth is not decided by plurality (or even majority) vote" (Sternberg, 1991).
Reference: Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Myths, countermyths, and truths about intelligence. Educational Researcher, 25(2), 11-16.
"..scientific truth is not decided by plurality (or even majority) vote"(Sternberg, 1991)."
It's not decided by religious beliefs in internet chat rooms either. You have however entirely missed his point as usual. Was it a deliberate straw man, or are you wasting glucose and oxygen on a brain that can't work out your error yet again?
Consensus isn't the only criteria see John, but it is an important one. For instance if we have the entire scientific world coming to the same conclusion after almost 160 years of intense scientific scrutiny then that is very compelling. Compared to say some arrogant halfwit with delusions of grandeur, trying to appear clever in an internet chat room with no scientific validation.
@John
Re: '"...scientific truth is not decided by plurality (or even majority) vote" (Sternberg, 1991).'
I searched your quote and apparently Robert Sternberg was talking about the psychometric paradigm. Here's what he said
"But the consensus is by no means unanimous, and in any case, scientific truth is not decided by plurality (or even majority) vote."
For starters, I don't see how a psychologist's opinion about the scientific consensus (or lack of it ) on the pysychometric paradigm has anything to do with the ToE. It's apples and oranges, surely?
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0013189X025002011?journalCod...
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=neQQAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq="the+consensus+is+by+no+means+unanimous,+and+in+any+case,+scientific+truth+is+not+decided+by+plurality+(or+even+majority)+vote"&source=bl&ots=p79PGazvIk&sig=AN_0JWQNTHsZZvhVpKLqRdnZqWY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiUifX-kJbbAhXIGpQKHV5-B64Q6AEwAHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q="the%20consensus%20is%20by%20no%20means%20unanimous%2C%20and%20in%20any%20case%2C%20scientific%20truth%20is%20not%20decided%20by%20plurality%20(or%20even%20majority)%20vote"&f=false
And here's another book by Sternberg called "The Evolution of Intelligence" :
https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Intelligence-Robert-J-Sternberg/dp/0415...
so he doesn't seem to share your opinion on the subject of the ToE, John. He appears to be part of the unanimous scientific consensus which regards evolution as fact.
I can't decide to whether go with this meme:
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Or this meme:
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
looks like it taste itchy.....i have not tasted it but i feel itchy already
haven't seen this kind of sardine before.
Insomuch as they are both widely accepted scientific ideas, it is worth reminding those who equate consensus with truth that science is not a democracy, and truths are not established by majority vote. Sternberg may very well be part of the current unanimous scientific consensus on evolution, but you can rest assured his reasons for doing so are not correlated with the number of scientists in that camp.
His comment establishes Carroll's hierarchy of intelligence as the most widely accepted model of the time. Then he reminds the reader that it is not unanimous, and even if it were, scientific truth is not decided by unanimity. That response is more than applicable to those in the forum, which protect their beliefs behind the veil of consensus.
Consider the following quote from his book in light of this kind of conversations:
"Creative scientists often defy the scientific establishment. Such scientists may choose to go their own way with respect to theory, research paradigm, philosophical orientation, or subject matter studied. The risks can be great, because the cost of such defiance can be rejected articles, unfunded grant proposals, and, in extreme cases, scientific oblivion. Yet, these scientists—individuals such as Wilhelm Wundt, Sigmund Freud, and Alfred Binet—are often and perhaps usually the ones whose work lives on, whereas the work of those scientists who conformed to existing scientific tastes may have a shorter life span" (Sterberg & Lubart, 1995).
Reference: Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.
@John
"Sternberg may very well be part of the current unanimous scientific consensus on evolution, but you can rest assured his reasons for doing so are not correlated with the number of scientists in that camp."
So what possible reason could Sternberg have for being "part of the current unanimous scientific consensus on evolution", John? .
Possibly the same reason those scientists who accepted a hierarchical model of intelligence, the geocentric model of the universe, and the phlogiston theory of combustion had: evidence.
That is, unless Sternberg is like me and holds an instrumentalist perspective on theories, and treats them only as predictive tools rather than attempts to describe the hidden structure of nature (Godfrey-smith, 2003).
Reference: Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
@John
So Sternberg accepts the "unanimous scientific consensus on evolution" because of the evidence.
It seems Peter Godfrey-Smith does, too:
https://www.amazon.com/Other-Minds-Octopus-Evolution-Intelligent-ebook/d...
https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Darwinian_Populations_and_Natura...
Hardly surprising, since the scientific consensus on evolution is unanimous. Not that Godfrey-Smith is a scientist. He's a philosopher.
So, the appropriate response to the claim that scientific truth is not established by consensus, is to attempt to show me there is a consensus?
Are you claiming consensus plays no part in validating scientific claims? Come on John, this is a transparent straw man red herring to detract from the fact you have no properly validated scientific evidence fro your denial of something regarded as a scientific fact by the entire scientific world. If you want to kid yourself that this global consensus including all experts in that field is irrelevant then crack on, but you can't really imagine anyone else is going to lend any credence to such nonsense.
@John
Re: " So, the appropriate response to the claim that scientific truth is not established by consensus, is to attempt to show me there is a consensus?"
Are you disowning your own statement, John?
"Sternberg may very well be part of the current unanimous scientific consensus on evolution, but you can rest assured his reasons for doing so are not correlated with the number of scientists in that camp."
"...unanimous scientific consensus on evolution..." That was you, right? On Tue, 05/22/2018 - 02:56? What is this? Unanimous scientific consensus is unanimous scientific consensus unless and until John changes his mind a few hours later?
Explain that again, what?
It's not rocket science, John. Five hours ago you said the scientific consensus on evolution is unanimous.
Repost:
@John
Re: " So, the appropriate response to the claim that scientific truth is not established by consensus, is to attempt to show me there is a consensus?"
Are you disowning your own statement, John?
"Sternberg may very well be part of the current unanimous scientific consensus on evolution, but you can rest assured his reasons for doing so are not correlated with the number of scientists in that camp."
"...unanimous scientific consensus on evolution..." That was you, right? On Tue, 05/22/2018 - 02:56? What is this? Unanimous scientific consensus is unanimous scientific consensus unless and until John changes his mind a few hours later?
How am I supposed to understand what you're saying if you just repost the same thing again?
@John.
At 02.56, 05/22/2018, you said the scientific consensus on evolution is unanimous. You said " Sternberg may very well be part of the current unanimous scientific consensus on evolution...." You stated there is unanimous scientific consensus on evolution. Then, at 04.32, 05/22/2018 you said "...show me there is a consensus".
Why do we have to show you there's a consensus when you've stated yourself that there is unanimous scientific consensus on evolution?
If you have an alternative hypothesis challenging the unanimous scientific consensus on evolution, please produce it. If you have a theory, even better.
Ok, I see; firstly, I simply modified your own statement that, "He appears to be part of the unanimous scientific consensus", with the response that he "May very well be" part of such consensus, but consensus has no value.
Secondly, in response to this you've proceeding to show me that Godfrey and Sternberg are part of such consensus, as if that should matter. So, I'm not asking you to show me theres a consensus, I'm asking why do you appear be doing that, despite my claim that it doesn't matter. Hence my question:
"So, the appropriate response to the claim [made by Sternberg and I] that scientific truth is not established by consensus, is to attempt to show me there is a consensus? [by telling me that Sternberg and Godfrey agree with evolution]"
@John
Re: " consensus has no value."
Sorry for the slow reply, John. I've been off reading other things you've said about science in general and the ToE in particular, and your position seems to be:
1. you accept and acknowledge there is unanimous scientific consensus on the ToE, but you think they're all wrong- victims of their own cognitive bias, interpreting observations as evidence to fit the paradigm they've all signed on to.
2. you think a handful of brilliant scientists will have a breakthrough that turns the ToE on its head, sometime in the future- forcing a paradigm shift like Freud did with psychiatry, for example.
Have I got it right?
The direction you're pointing at is correct, but written in ways I probably wouldn't have.
1. I prefer to say it's the prevailing theory of the day, rather than the unanimous consensus, given that I don't have that statistic. It also matters what aspect you focus on. In evolutionary psychology, feminist psychologists have been its fiercest critics.
2. All theories pass away, unless their proponents keep it alive by modifying it. It's likely that it'll come to be discarded in the future, but it is also likely that it'll be slowly modified into something entirely different from what it is today.
When a scientific theory has a kernel of truth it is usually not discarded but get incorporated as a specific case of a more general theory. The case of the theory of gravitation or linear geometry comes to mind. Newton's laws are not erased or discarded, they are just a specific case of a more general theory. Probably that is what will happen to biological evolution. It will be a case of a more encompassing theory dealing with the evolution of matter. As a fact, I have read some papers trying to do that. (A pity I do not remember where these papers are now.)
"consensus has no value."
Can you really be this obtuse John, clearly no one thinks consensus alone validates scientific claims, science being a human pursuit means it is fallible see, so even a unanimous consensus *can be wrong. This doesn't mean a scientific consensus has *no value, that's absurdly stupid. If every expert in a field of science validates the same data then it quite obviously has value, if it didn't then what would be the point of offering their work and ideas for scrutiny testing and peer review?
Yet again I can''t decide if you're being *deliberately obtuse, or if it is accidental. Your duplicity elsewhere is making me favour the former. Since once you admit it (scientific consensus) has value your stance is exposed as creationist faith based idiocy denying scientific fact. It's also why you repeatedly refuse to answer the question how may scientific facts other than evolution do you deny that don't in any way refute your religious beliefs?
John 61X Breezy,
The reason popular errors lasted so long centuries ago is twofold: 1) the error was often supported by religious dogma; 2) scientific investigation was at a much lower level due to a fraction of scientists and the slow, inefficient circulation of ideas.
Creationists, and John Breezy too, have made a big fuss about Newtonian physics having been accepted for centuries by a universal consensus. But, that's not the relevant point here! Once Einstein's special relativity came out in 1905 (I think) it swept the field in just a few years. Once Darwin's idea came out, it won a majority of scientists over in just a few years despite heavy, religious prejudice! We could also add Stephen Jay Gould's challenge to classical gradualism which, I believe, was Darwin's starting point. In just a few years the new idea won a respectable share of that market.
On the other hand, theists have been throwing everything, including the kitchen sink, at evolution for almost 160 years! It has only gotten stronger! Thus, this consensus is very different that those dealing with a flat earth, an earth-centered solar system, Newtonian physics, or the Adam and Eve "theory." It gives us every reason to believe we are right. It cannot be brushed off with the old popularity-contests-don't-determine-truth smokescreen.
"it is worth reminding those who equate consensus with truth that science is not a democracy,"
And he repeats his straw man, kerching he is the most dishonest poster alive, or he is wasting glucose and oxygen because he really thinks anyone has claimed a scientific consensus ***AFUCKINGLONE*** is what validates scientific ideas.
I am well past caring whether it's duplicity or stupidity, maybe someone else can decide which before I fall asleep out of boredo.........................................................................mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Consensus plays no role, neither in isolation nor combination. You can't sprinkle it on top, use it as the base, or make it the whole meal in a scientific argument.
"Consensus plays no role"
Yes it does, you mean you don't think it should, but then you would wouldn't.
"Insomuch as they are both widely accepted scientific ideas, it is worth reminding those who equate consensus with truth that science is not a democracy, and truths are not established by majority vote."
I just answered this john, do you think a worldwide consensus amongst all qualified scientists on an established theory over almost 160 years is less compelling than a student in an unrelated field insisting he knows better in an atheist internet chatroom with no scientific crednetials because his religious beliefs are threatened?
You are funny John I'll give you that, fair play. Do take your time...
John 61X Breezy,
I think I'd bet my money on the scientific consensus. Knowing that creationism has been trying to take out evolution for 160, with less success than ever, I could put out 5 to 1 odds and feel safe about collecting the pot. So, a consensus is pretty important, especially one supported by so much diverse data. So, we have this huge weight on one side of the scales.
On the other side we have Mr. Breezy and an odd assortment of creationists sporting Ph.Ds. They write books for the layman because their attacks on evolution can't get published in scientific, peer-reviewed journals. Their arguments to the layman, while bringing wild applause from the choir, are so terrible that a bright high school student could shoot most of them down. So, we have a feather weight on the other side of the scales.
Yes, it's true that popularity doesn't guarantee truth. But, the choice here is a no-brainer!
You're free to bet in any direction you want, and use consensus as an important source in that prediction. The only thing that changes is my perception of you as scientifically minded.
John 61X Breezy,
Based on your continuing denial of reality, I'm not going to lose any sleep over your perception of me! Your opinion in these matters carries no weight.
Pages