Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 18 Apr '09 10:46
    Newscientist magazine defined “agnotology” as:

    “the study of deliberately created ignorance -such as the falsehood about evolution that are spread by creationists”

    I never heard of this word before so I looked it up:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology

    -I didn’t know there was a science about the deliberate propagation of ignorance!
    Wasn’t too sure if I should put this in the science forum or the spirituality forum due to its relevance to creationists tactics but it IS a science so I put it here. Any thoughts?
  2. Standard member KellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    18 Apr '09 12:58
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    Newscientist magazine defined “agnotology” as:

    “the study of deliberately created ignorance -such as the falsehood about evolution that are spread by creationists”

    I never heard of this word before so I looked it up:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology

    -I didn’t know there was a science about the deliberate propagation of ignorance! ...[text shortened]... due to its relevance to creationists tactics but it IS a science so I put it here. Any thoughts?
    Yes, crap like this is used all the time to avoid honest debate, attack
    the people belittle them and you do not have to deal with their points
    of view honestly, you can just feel smug your right and they are wrong.
    Kelly
  3. 18 Apr '09 14:30 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Yes, crap like this is used all the time to avoid honest debate, attack
    the people belittle them and you do not have to deal with their points
    of view honestly, you can just feel smug your right and they are wrong.
    Kelly
    What are you doing if not belittling them? Are you willing to honestly debate whether or not they have a genuine scientific case?

    Do you actually not know that some Christians deliberately pass on lies about evolution because they believe it threatens their faith? Some have even admitted it to me.
  4. 18 Apr '09 18:43 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Yes, crap like this is used all the time to avoid honest debate, attack
    the people belittle them and you do not have to deal with their points
    of view honestly, you can just feel smug your right and they are wrong.
    Kelly
    …crap like this is used all the time to avoid honest debate
    ..…


    You are right -deliberate propagation of ignorance is used all the time to avoid honest debate.

    …attack the people belittle them and you do not have to deal with their points
    of view honestly, you can just feel smug your right and they are wrong.
    ..…


    You are absolutely right again -for attacking the people and belittle them by use of the straw man argument against them by creating the false view that their point of view is stupid and spreading falsehoods about the science that proofs them right and you do not have to deal with their points of view honestly, you can just feel smug your right and they are wrong.
  5. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    28 Apr '09 21:49 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    [b]Yes, crap like this is used all the time to avoid honest debate, attack
    the people belittle them and you do not have to deal with their points
    of view honestly, you can just feel smug your right and they are wrong.
    Kelly[/b
    There have been many honest debates of creationists V science. The problem is creationists/ID'ers cannot scientifically even find evidence much less proof of their contentions and instead resort to court battles to force schools to teach creationism side by side with evolution, letting the children quote 'decide for themselves' which quote 'theory' is correct. Note they are not even attempting a scientific discourse in a science class, simply a religiously based court case to specifically disrupt the teaching of evolution, which has now 150 years of solid scientific evidence, even though the latest thought shows there not to be a solid tree of life but still linked through DNA to the distant past. This multi-lifetime buildup of evidence is indisputable and they don't want to dispute it, they want to DESTROY it, not meeting with their biblical based myth of creation which was not even originated by Christians but a thrice told tale copied in the early days of Judaism as you well know. Creationists avoid actual scientific debate like the plague because they know with absolute certainty there is no science in creationism, merely religious dogma and not even original but consciously plagerized.
  6. 29 Apr '09 04:22
    Let me remind everyone about Double truth...

    About "Double truth":
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_(religious)#.22Double_truth.22_theories

    I like this section in particular:
    "Other Christian sects, especially Fundamentalists, go to the other extreme, and urge their followers to reject any science that conflicts with the literal interpretation of scripture. In their view, real scientific evidence always supports the Bible, and scientists only hold beliefs contrary to the Bible because of evidence, and because scientists desire to find a reason instead of God, in order to continue their sinful life styles."
  7. 29 Apr '09 07:53
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    There have been many honest debates of creationists V science. The problem is creationists/ID'ers cannot scientifically even find evidence much less proof of their contentions and instead resort to court battles to force schools to teach creationism side by side with evolution, letting the children quote 'decide for themselves' which quote 'theory' is corre ...[text shortened]... ows there not to be a solid tree of life but still linked through DNA to the distant past.
    I was under the impression that it was the scientists that brought the court cases to try to keep Creationists out of the science class room. Does anyone here know which way around it was (for the two most well known cases)?
  8. 29 Apr '09 08:17
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I was under the impression that it was the scientists that brought the court cases to try to keep Creationists out of the science class room. Does anyone here know which way around it was (for the two most well known cases)?
    As creationism is a part of religion, it shouldn't be in the science class room in the first plase.
    Religion and science never mix.
  9. 29 Apr '09 09:11
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    As creationism is a part of religion, it shouldn't be in the science class room in the first plase.
    Religion and science never mix.
    I know that. But it was my understanding that certain people were pushing it into the science class room in the US and that the court cases were an attempt to get it out. I am merely seeking clarification as to whether the person(s) who brought the court case were trying to get it in or out of the class room.
  10. 09 May '09 00:55
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Yes, crap like this is used all the time to avoid honest debate, attack
    the people belittle them and you do not have to deal with their points
    of view honestly, you can just feel smug your right and they are wrong.
    Kelly
    I think this is classic case of emotivism.
  11. 09 May '09 16:52 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by dannyUchiha
    I think this is classic case of emotivism.
    On which side of the debate?
    -I can see how I can take that statement in two different and completely opposite ways and I don't know which one you mean.
  12. 09 May '09 17:27
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    On which side of the debate?
    -I can see how I can take that statement in two different and completely opposite ways and I don't know which one you mean.
    On the fact hat a serious discussion is avoided by trying to belittle your opponent and humilliate them instead on focusing on the point.

    No serious discussion takes place, both sides convinced they're right and don't have to hear the other one out.

    On court, people use force and pressure instead of trying to reason the issue at hand.
  13. 09 May '09 18:08 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by dannyUchiha
    On the fact hat a serious discussion is avoided by trying to belittle your opponent and humilliate them instead on focusing on the point.

    No serious discussion takes place, both sides convinced they're right and don't have to hear the other one out.

    On court, people use force and pressure instead of trying to reason the issue at hand.
    …both sides convinced they're right
    .…


    correct

    ….and don't have to hear the other one out. ...…

    But they do here -they just disagree, that’s all.
  14. 09 May '09 18:22
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton

    ….and don't have to hear the other one out. ...…

    But they do here -they just disagree, that’s all.[/b]
    Yes, but they use as argument-counter argument two things that cannot be measured as equal.

    For example, one side says that a Biblical explanation is worth more than a scientific one, while the other one says the contrary.

    Neither side is correct, because one cannot measure the importance of science or religion based on the other. Is like trying to measure which flavor is best. You simply can't measure them.

    In this sense, I think they don't hear each other, or maybe they do, but don't bother to understand what the other is bringing to the table.
  15. 09 May '09 18:54 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by dannyUchiha
    Yes, but they use as argument-counter argument two things that cannot be measured as equal.

    For example, one side says that a Biblical explanation is worth more than a scientific one, while the other one says the contrary.

    Neither side is correct, because one cannot measure the importance of science or religion based on the other. Is like trying er, or maybe they do, but don't bother to understand what the other is bringing to the table.
    …one side says that a Biblical explanation is WORTH more than a scientific one, while the other one says the contrary.

    Neither side is correct, because one cannot measure the IMPORTANCE of science or religion based on the other. .…
    (my emphasis)

    “WORTH more”? “IMPORTANCE of”? this is certainly not what I have been arguing about here nor most of the rest of us. What most of us are arguing about here most of the time is not which one is “WORTH more” nor the “IMPORTANCE of” each but rather which on is “factually correct”.

    But, of course, if you don’t take what the religious scriptures say too literally, there is very limited conflict between them thus rendering which is “factually correct” academic.

    But if one side says the Earth is, say, 40,000 years old, and the other side says it is older than this, surely it couldn’t logically be true that “neither side is correct” as you said?