A slightly biased attempt to discredit evolutio...

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…So your argument is if EVERYTHING is the same EVERYWHERE, everyone
will get the same answer if they are flawless in how they look at it
all? … (my emphasis)

“EVERYTHING”? -no, that is not my argument. The only thing that has to be exactly the same is the data the two people are given. I don’t know where you got this “EVERYTHING” and “EVERYWHERE“, from.[/b]

"They may come to different interpretation of that same data in which case at least one of them is not using logic that it totally flawless. "

I got it from this! You can look at things through various prisms, you
seem to be suggesting that there is only one way to view all things,
and you keep using the term flawless whlie doing so. If people do not
agree with you, you automatically think they are flawed?
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
That is irrelevant to what I was saying there. I did not say nor imply that thinking rationally means the data that you are using MUST be correct.

I think you better take that into account if while using flawless logic,
you assume all your data is being correctly viewed will lead you
to the same result, of course having flawed views about your data
will just mean your result will also be flawed.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]“WHICH theories scientific method can potentially be proven to be true and WHICH theories scientific method can potentially be proven to be false is independent of humans"

If the above proposition is false, then it must logically follow that it is possible, for example, for a human being to scientifically PROVE that the Earth is flat even ...[text shortened]... dy scientifically PROVE (that means using flawless logic) that the Earth is flat when it isn’t?[/b]

You really do not understand my points and I think not likely too.
We just disagree and I'm quitting the discussion.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think you better take that into account if while using flawless logic,
you assume all your data is being correctly viewed will lead you
to the same result, of course having flawed views about your data
will just mean your result will also be flawed.
Kelly

Isn’t saying “having flawed views about your data” just another way of saying “using flawed logic to interpreting your data”?

Originally posted by KellyJay
"They may come to different interpretation of that same data in which case at least one of them is not using logic that it totally flawless. "

I got it from this! You can look at things through various prisms, you
seem to be suggesting that there is only one way to view all things,
and you keep using the term flawless whlie doing so. If people do not
agree with you, you automatically think they are flawed?
Kelly

…you seem to be suggesting that there is only ONE WAY to view ALL things,
… (my emphasis)

No. That is not what I suggest. I suggest there is only ONE MOST RATIONAL WAY (there is an infinite number of less rational ways) to interpret scientific data (so NOT “ALL” things; just data).

… If people do not agree with you, you automatically think they are flawed?…

No. If two people disagree with each other on the interpretation of the SAME data then at least one of them is not using totally flawless logic. If I am one of those two people, then it could be me that not using totally flawless logic. I have sometimes been wrong in the past. Will you stop making out that I think I am always right -it is most condescending.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Isn’t saying “having flawed views about your data” just another way of saying “using flawed logic to interpreting your data”?

They are two different things completely.

You can look at a mathematical equation and nail it with respect to
finding X whatever X is, yet within your equation if you were to for
example leave something out that reality required, add something in
that shouldn’t have been there, misrepresent the a value of a single
or various data points even if your math is solid or flawless however
you wish to describe it you’re still coming up with the wrong
answer in the end with respect to reality. Human opinion you will
have gotten it right maybe, but that is not always a reflection of
reality as is.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…you seem to be suggesting that there is only ONE WAY to view ALL things,
… (my emphasis)

No. That is not what I suggest. I suggest there is only ONE MOST RATIONAL WAY (there is an infinite number of less rational ways) to interpret scientific data (so NOT “ALL” things; just data).

… If people do not agree with you, you automatical ...[text shortened]... in the past. Will you stop making out that I think I am always right -it is most condescending.

[/b]I'm not the one making that claim you are! I am stopping; however,
we have gone over this enough, I'm not trying to insult you, and if it
is coming off that way, we have indeed been on this subject way to
long. Sorry for insulting you, not intended.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
They are two different things completely.

You can look at a mathematical equation and nail it with respect to
finding X whatever X is, yet within your equation if you were to for
example leave something out that reality required, add something in
that shouldn’t have been there, misrepresent the a value of a single
or various data points even if your ...[text shortened]... will
have gotten it right maybe, but that is not always a reflection of
reality as is.
Kelly

I don’t deny any of that nor did I imply I did.
However, I may have misunderstood what you meant by: “flawed views about your data”.

I think in your maths example, either the formulation of the equation part is part of the logic that you need to get right (ideally using flawless logic) before you can start to calculate the value of X, or, you didn’t formulate that equation yourself but where given that equation and incorrectly told (or in effect told) that the equation was correct when it is in fact wrong, in which case that means that that equation is part of the data (it is your “data” because it was given to you and you didn’t formulate it yourself) you have been given and that part of your data is wrong. If two people where given that same wrong equation as data and used flawless logic to obtain the value of X, they would both obtain the same wrong answer and if two people where given that same correct equation as data and used flawless logic to obtain the value of X, they would both obtain the same right answer-in this way, what answers are deduced from flawless logic is independent from human beings.

-and that is very similar to what I was saying about scientific method.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I don’t deny any of that nor did I imply I did.
However, I may have misunderstood what you meant by: “flawed views about your data”.

I think in your maths example, either the formulation of the equation part is part of the logic that you need to get right (ideally using flawless logic) before you can start to calculate the value of X, or, you di ...[text shortened]... nt from human beings.

-and that is very similar to what I was saying about scientific method.

No problem, let us just end this on place we almost agree. Because
I'm tired of saying if you start with humans, have humans do the
work, and have humans give the end result that you cannot say
it is independent of humans.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No problem, let us just end this on place we almost agree. Because
I'm tired of saying if you start with humans, have humans do the
work, and have humans give the end result that you cannot say
it is independent of humans.
Kelly

… Because I'm tired of saying if you start with humans, have humans do the WORK, and have humans give the end result that you cannot say it is independent of humans. …. (my emphasises)

“WORK”? the word “work” could mean any kind of work -such as building work etc -if you mean that “work” in general then you are changing the subject. Obviously I wouldn’t say “work” as in building a house etc is “independent of humans”. What I have been referring to all this time I wouldn’t normally refer to “work” as in work in general but I would specifically call it either “flawless analysis of data” or “strict scientific method” both of which is done by humans (so that what causes the scientific analysis or logical analysis to exist is dependent on humans) but has an outcome in the form of conclusions that is generally independent of humans (but is dependent on the data used)

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]… Because I'm tired of saying if you start with humans, have humans do the WORK, and have humans give the end result that you cannot say it is independent of humans. …. (my emphasises)

“WORK”? the word “work” could mean any kind of work -such as building work etc -if you mean that “work” in general then you are changing the subject. Obvious ...[text shortened]... humans) but has an outcome in the form of conclusions that is generally independent of humans.[/b]

The last words on that topic are yours.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The last words on that topic are yours.
Kelly

So that's it now, you figure you have answered all of the questions put to you?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So that's it now, you figure you have answered all of the questions put to you?

With respect to science's facts and humans are some how not
connected, I'd say yes I have gone around the block enough times to
see that nothing new has been added, and both sides still hold to the
points they had at the beginning. You have something new to add or
not to that discussion? I'm content to say we disagree and leave it at
that.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
With respect to science's facts and humans are some how not
connected, I'd say yes I have gone around the block enough times to
see that nothing new has been added, and both sides still hold to the
points they had at the beginning. You have something new to add or
not to that discussion? I'm content to say we disagree and leave it at
that.
Kelly

…With respect to science's facts and humans are SOMEHOW not
CONNECTED, I'd say yes …. (my emphasis)

That absurdly over-generalised question which you insinuate we (or I?) asked (“Are science's facts and humans SOMEHOW CONNECTED?&rdquo😉 with slightly ambiguous words such “SOMEHOW” and “CONNECTED” (what sort of “connected”?) was never put to you by anyone (other than yourself).

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…With respect to science's facts and humans are SOMEHOW not
CONNECTED, I'd say yes …. (my emphasis)

That absurdly over-generalised question which you insinuate we (or I?) asked (“Are science's facts and humans SOMEHOW CONNECTED?&rdquo😉 with slightly ambiguous words such “SOMEHOW” and “CONNECTED” (what sort of “connected”?) was never put to you by anyone (other than yourself).[/b]

It was suggested that science's facts had nothing to do with people,
and I disagreed. I don't want to go over the whole of the debate
again, my point remains the same, reality does not have anything
to do with any human's point of view, while science is built upon
human observation, human conclusions, human testing, and so on.
You cannot tell me that a scientific fact is not related to people when
at the same time it is people who are giving us the scientific facts.
Kelly