|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 08/26/2004 : 15:03:34 [Permalink]
|
| I guess what tk doesn't understand (among so many obvious things) is that it's ok, even encouraged, to question the credentials of an "expert". If a PhD is awarded by a non-acredited school, then the validity of that person's expertise is definitely in question. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 16:31:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
I guess what tk doesn't understand (among so many obvious things) is that it's ok, even encouraged, to question the credentials of an "expert". If a PhD is awarded by a non-acredited school, then the validity of that person's expertise is definitely in question.
Agreed. Yes, a person's arguments should be debated on its own merits, and attacks on a person don't invalidate their proof. But, when you go around calling yourself a PhD when your aren't, you become guilty of appealing to authority. (In this case, the status granted to PhD holders).
Also, I think lying says a lot about a person's character. No, just because a person lies about one thing doesn't mean they can't make a truthful point later, but credibilty isn't irrelevant.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/26/2004 16:31:43 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 19:45:12 [Permalink]
|
H. Humbert wrote:quote:
Yes, a person's arguments should be debated on its own merits, and attacks on a person don't invalidate their proof. But, when you go around calling yourself a PhD when your aren't, you become guilty of appealing to authority. (In this case, the status granted to PhD holders).
In Hovind's case, there's more to it than that. He acts for all the world like a simple dogmatist - refusing to properly address criticism and repeating himself endlessly - but claims to have a doctorate in education. It is this incongruity, especially when he flaunts his title, which is explained by where his doctorate came from and how he attained it.
And showing that those behind-the-scenes are inadequate to truly claim a PhD (as does Dr. Bartlet), throws much of his other claims into question. Just because Hovind's PhD isn't worth the dot-matrix printer it was published with, you can't simply say that Hovind's claims are wrong, but you can feel justified in asking for independent source material if Hovind states that the sky is blue. And if no proper response is forthcoming, then you can begin to feel justified in dismissing the claim. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 23:37:43 [Permalink]
|
I must admit I find it hard to take Hovind for real. This is a guy who knows that he is lying. His arguments are easily refuted and he knows it.
A guy touting a fake PhD and lies for donations is a con man, nothing else.
Like ways I find it hard to take skeptictimes for real. Someone who claim to study skepticism and biology but still peddle Hovinds tripe is either as dumb as a doornail or more likely playing some loki game.
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2004 : 05:20:31 [Permalink]
|
This a review of one of Kenneth Millers books from amazon.com.
quote:
From Scientific American
Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, believes firmly in evolution. He also believes in God-a belief not widely shared among scientists. Here he sets out to offer thoughts on how to reconcile the conflict many people see between the two positions. Evolution, he says, is a story of origins; so too is the Judeo-Christian creation story. "The conflict between these two versions of our history is real, and I do not doubt for a second that it needs to be addressed. What I do not believe is that the conflict is unresolvable." Laying out the positions with care and clarity, he offers his resolution: "As more than one scientist has said, the truly remarkable thing about the world is that it actually does make sense. The parts fit, the molecules interact, the darn thing works. To people of faith, what evolution says is that nature is complete. God fashioned a material world in which truly free, truly independent beings could evolve."
EDITORS OF SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
Based on this book it may be that Miller does bring in the origins of life and the universe into his biology texts. Possibly his beliefs creep into his text books. It is ironic, but the biggest problem that tk has with Miller may be his strong belief in God...
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2004 : 06:51:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Yes, the not allowing to attack Creationist sources was weird but I questioned tk about it:
quote:
So if you post a source that is Christian in nature and it says that a fish is the same species as a monkey, I can not attack it?
And if I find a source that is Christian in nature which supports evolution, you can not attack it?
And he replied:
quote:
Ok well if it helps you to know, I, Kevin and Jimi will deal with the fairness of that, though some of that is a little off.
Off hand I will say it is one thing to deal with science. This however: "Dr. Kent Hovind does not have a legitimate PhD" is not a part of science at all. Attacking sources that don't deal with scientific argument.
Again, we'll look into this and if it's not clear please let us know.
take care,
tk
So is just a rule against personal attack, not attacking the validity of the sources, and I have just asked him to change the wording of the rule so it is more clear.
Saying that Hovind does not have a legitamate PhD is salient when discussing a source. If the source cited as expert is from an individual who is not an expert in the field, unqualified, or otherwise joking or drunk, relying on the source is a fallacious appeal to authority. In this case, Hovind matches the first two criteria. He is both not an expert in the field he is speaking on and he is unqualified. This is sort of like Noam Chomsky on a subject other than linguistics. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2004 : 06:56:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Based on this book it may be that Miller does bring in the origins of life and the universe into his biology texts. Possibly his beliefs creep into his text books. It is ironic, but the biggest problem that tk has with Miller may be his strong belief in God...
The review is of Miller's book Finding Darwin's God-- something I doubt he uses in his intro biology class. And as linked above, his syllabus makes no mention of the origins of the universe, etc. From all I've seen, he doesn't think those questions are germane to evolution per se. After all, it would be hard for a professor at Brown-- one of the best universities in the country-- to begin a paper at a major conference with "after God made life on earth..."
It's more likely that he keeps the theology out of the biology. Indeed, his statement that "God fashioned a material world in which truly free, truly independent beings could evolve" sounds very much like he thinks that his god works through the mechanisms of science or better, created those mechanisms.
In any case, this is all a non issue until tk can actually provide some proof from the various sources he sites to show how main-stream texts are mixing evolutionary biology and cosmology in some way. He seems to be on a real crusade against this, and rightly so. If his accusations are true, it's quite a scandal!
What's curious is that this guy apparently hasn't bothered to take notes about this. Who are the people doing this? He gives some vague references, and then asks us to find the specifics. Doesn't this seem odd? If he's really out there issuing million dollar challenges, shouldn't he know what, exactly, he's challenging?
The reality is that the 'challenge' is all for show. Kenneth Miller isn't going to take him up on it because a) he's not guilty of the charges, and b) he has no idea who tk is. Thus, Miller gets to go on doing real work in the field of biology, and tk gets to look cool on his website by 'sticking it' to the establishment with his 'bold' challenges. Don Quixote, anyone? |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2004 : 09:05:02 [Permalink]
|
Well, it seems that tk has agreed that real evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis and the creation of the universe. However, two important questions remain.
1.) Why does he continue to conflate these three into one, just as he accuses the biology textbooks of doing?
2.) Why does he not try to teach the visitors on his site that this is not how it really is?
If you truely know that evolution has nothing to do with the other two, then you are only spreading the lies by making it appear so on your site. You, are in fact, against yourself (as you are against textbooks who teach them as the same).
I believe the reason why he conflates the three is that it makes it easier to show that biological evolution is false, which he believes. In combining biological evolution with abiogenesis and the creation of the universe, it makes the whole look more unstable, and thus, biological evolution is more unstable. This is completely false as you can not in any way combine the three. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2004 : 17:36:49 [Permalink]
|
Perhaps he doesn't understand the concept of credibility.
Or, perhaps, he knows damn well that most of the creationist dogma is a best poorly credible.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2004 : 01:51:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
I must admit I find it hard to take Hovind for real. This is a guy who knows that he is lying. His arguments are easily refuted and he knows it.
A guy touting a fake PhD and lies for donations is a con man, nothing else.
Like ways I find it hard to take skeptictimes for real. Someone who claim to study skepticism and biology but still peddle Hovinds tripe is either as dumb as a doornail or more likely playing some loki game.
I sincerely hope that skeptictimes is some sort of unfunny joke, but honestly I don't think it is. I think he knows perfectly well that he is lying, and does it intentionally and knowingly with the purpose of decieving people. I could be wrong and I hope that I am, and that he's just pulling all our legs, because I think that if he simply did not know anything about biology or evolution, then that would be another matter, because everyone can't know everything. I know very little about it too, still he seems to know even less, and he's a biology student. There's something very strange about that. So yes, I think it's him lying knowingly, and also abusing the word skeptic just as pseudoscience proponents does with all kinds of "scientific" terms. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2004 : 10:35:27 [Permalink]
|
| So he knows as much about journalistic integrity as he does evolution.... which is absolutely nothing. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2004 : 13:47:26 [Permalink]
|
| Another comment, assuming Tk has decided not to stay but may be lurking just the same, If one person pisses you off does that mean all of us are worthless? I'd say that post was an excuse to leave a difficult situation: real challenge. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
