subjective science

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If you don't know, how can you tell that Dr Watson's work doesn't support the notion of intelligent design?

Because I have read what he has written about his work.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
How can someone who 'doesn't know' en be in a position to decide whether his work has some bearing on the intelligent design argument?

Because I know what your superstitious "intelligent design argument" is and I know what his position is. And his position does not support your position.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The question I answered was your scenario not mine, or have you forgotten that you framed the question?

I wasn't asking you about your Physics teaching. I was asking about how an "educator" - as you say you are - dealing with issues of superstition with "students". You thought I was inviting you to use teaching Physics as an analogy for you talking to your "students" about whether or not a supernatural being created the universe? How odd.

Originally posted by @dj2becker back on page 22
So if you ask a tricky question to your students you will give the students that attempt to answer the question the same grade as those that say they don't know?

This is where you introduced the idea of how to handle "students". So you had the idea of asking questions about Physics in mind here and not the sort of questions we were talking about up to that point? It's such an outlandish leap. You should have said something.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The question I answered was your scenario not mine, or have you forgotten that you framed the question?

On which page did I set the "scenario" you are referring to? On which page are you saying I "framed the question"? I cannot find any question where I was asking you about teaching something like Physics. What page?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Obviously you would accept an abstention because that fits in neatly with your agnosticism.

I personally have more respect for someone who looks at all the arguments out there and decides there is insufficient evidence to substantiate an answer. Far better to say 'I don't know' than throw your weight behind an answer that is unsubstantiated. (Or incorrect).

So, for example, as to how the universe came in to existence, I've looked at and studied the explanations out there (including God) and do not find any of them in any way conclusive or evidenced. My answer therefore is 'I don't know how the universe came in to existence.' - You on the other hand apparently can't handle 'not knowing' and have jumped on to the 'Goddidit' bandwagon, despite its shaky wheels and poor trajectory.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
My discipline is Physics. If any student responds to any of my questions with "I don't know", they get a zero. Zero for effort and zero for thought.

What if that 'I don't know' comes after considerable study and reflection. You would rather them be convinced by an incorrect answer that they stick rigidly to?!

Originally posted by @fmf
Because I know what your superstitious "intelligent design argument" is and I know what his position is. And his position does not support your position.

I am talking about his work not his 'position'.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I am talking about his work not his 'position'.

His position and his work are the same thing, in so far as I have been using the words "position" and "work".

Originally posted by @fmf
I wasn't asking you about your Physics teaching. I was asking about how an "educator" - as you say you are - dealing with issues of superstition with "students". You thought I was inviting you to use teaching Physics as an analogy for you talking to your "students" about whether or not a supernatural being created the universe? How odd.

I don't deal with matters of superstition with my students, I teach them Physics.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I personally have more respect for someone who looks at all the arguments out there and decides there is insufficient evidence to substantiate an answer. Far better to say 'I don't know' than throw your weight behind an answer that is unsubstantiated. (Or incorrect).

So, for example, as to how the universe came in to existence, I've looked at and ...[text shortened]... g' and have jumped on to the 'Goddidit' bandwagon, despite its shaky wheels and poor trajectory.

If you weren't boxed into your narrow paradigm of atheism maybe you could be more objective when evaluating arguments.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
What if that 'I don't know' comes after considerable study and reflection. You would rather them be convinced by an incorrect answer that they stick rigidly to?!

No matter how much you study and reflect, if you are boxed into your narrow prism of atheism and not even open to the possibility of a creator no evidence will ever be good enough for you.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I don't deal with matters of superstition with my students, I teach them Physics.

Then why did you think your teaching of Physics was an appropriate lens through which to scrutinize the matter of supernatural causality that we were in the midst of discussing?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
What if that 'I don't know' comes after considerable study and reflection. You would rather them be convinced by an incorrect answer that they stick rigidly to?!

I don't know is definitely not the right answer assuming a right answer exists.

Originally posted by @fmf
His position and his work are the same thing, in so far as I have been using the words "position" and "work".

So you are saying his beliefs about the supernatural and his scientific discoveries are the same thing? 🙄