Akheia Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Legion, I'm just going to ask what I'm sure is on plenty of people's minds, namely this: what the fuck is your problem lately? You'd surely be the first to recognize that arguments from ignorance are about the dumbest, least likely ways possible to arrive at knowledge and understanding. People's "intuition" is not often rational or correct when it comes to facts. That's why Wikipedia's list of cognitive biases is so long and so fascinating--you should read it sometime; it might teach you a few things about how you're going about this whole thread. What "makes the most sense" doesn't always lead to truth. And when you call someone a "hero" whose work is far from proven or complete, I must question just what the hell else you're reading, because it sure isn't stuff that's accurate or truthful regarding evolution and biology. But when called out on it and people want to know what evidence you have for your claims, your response is to get passive-aggressive and mischaracterize science. Science does not say "I understand." It says, "Wow, that was fucking neat, what next?" Science doesn't claim to be the end-all be-all because our understanding is constantly evolving. But it evolves with facts. You'd know that because--oh wait, you didn't give any, so maybe that's wrong of me to say. Hell, you haven't even given any reason for us to discard the scientific method in favor of whatever odd little homebrew you think you've got going on over there; you seem content to badmouth science and the scientific method, but sorry Legion, we need a bit more than that. BD didn't suggest you study anything, but I certainly did. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 ... you seem content to badmouth science and the scientific method, but sorry Legion, we need a bit more than that. I can assure you Akheia that my suckage far exceeds your suckage. I can barely look at myself in the mirror sometimes. I completely dig science. I love it's intent to better understand the natural world. It has a great mixture of the humility to admit ignorance, and the arrogance to believe that we can do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Okay, so please pony up the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Okay, so please pony up the evidence. I suppose I could try. But I'm not sure to what you are referring. There seem to be many issues at hand here. Biology is rife with conflict. Could you please present a specific question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 What, you haven't been paying attention to what you wrote either? Responding to post #181 would be nice. And expanding on what you wrote in post #183 would be another good start. You've made assertions all through this thread without backing them up or providing the least shred of evidence for them. Those would be good starts to figure out whether or not your "hero" isn't really a "zero" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Freebird has a point, Legion. You're making some pretty big claims here that Rosen's ideas are going to completely revolutionize biology or whatever. Maybe that's the case- I'm not arguing directly against it. But if you want others to find this work as compelling as you do, you're going to need to give some specific examples of how this works and why its useful. And why we should care. There's a high burden of proof when you go against an established field of study and for good reason. I can tell you why Theoretical and Mathematical Biology is important. For computer modeling. It is opening the field for using analytic models to recreate biological behavior and can eliminate the need for test subjects. It's like Macroeconomics and the benefit of modeling economic systems and predict its behavior. It all comes down to the quality of the model itself though. A couple of Complex/Mathematical/Systems Biology research centers: http://www.smb.org/index.shtml http://www.esmtb.org/ http://mathbio.nimr.mrc.ac.uk/wiki/Division_of_Mathematical_Biology_at_NIMR http://bip.weizmann.ac.il/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Responding to post #181 would be nice. And expanding on what you wrote in post #183 would be another good start. Part of post #183 was a reponse to post #181. But I agree with you that an expansion there might be constructive. I might have time tomorrow morning for it. You've made assertions all through this thread without backing them up or providing the least shred of evidence for them. Those would be good starts to figure out whether or not your "hero" isn't really a "zero" Uh, perhaps you're confused here. I don't require your confirmation of my hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Freebird has a point, Legion. You're making some pretty big claims here that Rosen's ideas are going to completely revolutionize biology or whatever. Maybe that's the case- I'm not arguing directly against it. But if you want others to find this work as compelling as you do, you're going to need to give some specific examples of how this works and why its useful. And why we should care. There's a high burden of proof when you go against an established field of study and for good reason. I can tell you why Theoretical and Mathematical Biology is important. For computer modeling. It is opening the field for using analytic models to recreate biological behavior and can eliminate the need for test subjects. It's like Macroeconomics and the benefit of modeling economic systems and predict its behavior. It all comes down to the quality of the model itself though. A couple of Complex/Mathematical/Systems Biology research centers: http://www.smb.org/index.shtml http://www.esmtb.org/ http://mathbio.nimr.mrc.ac.uk/wiki/Division_of_Mathematical_Biology_at_NIMR http://bip.weizmann.ac.il/index.html I'm not entirely sure that you and Legion are talking about the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Then BE constructive. So far whenever I've asked you to be you run into the shadows. I have my ways. I will be more inclined to be constructive when you yourself also decide to be so. You're never going to convince anybody or generate any interest with an attitude like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wndwalkr99 Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Then BE constructive. So far whenever I've asked you to be you run into the shadows. I have my ways. I will be more inclined to be constructive when you yourself also decide to be so. You're never going to convince anybody or generate any interest with an attitude like this. He has certainly lost my interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 You're never going to convince anybody or generate any interest with an attitude like this. Well, I just don't get you guys then. We can sit here at ex-C and piss on other people's ideas. But we could also work together to improve our own. Frankly, I don't want to be someone who tries to generate ideas, while others only play the role of being skeptical and critical of them. I understand that the weighing and sifting of ideas entails testing them, but some balance would be cool too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Freebird has a point, Legion. You're making some pretty big claims here that Rosen's ideas are going to completely revolutionize biology or whatever. Maybe that's the case- I'm not arguing directly against it. But if you want others to find this work as compelling as you do, you're going to need to give some specific examples of how this works and why its useful. And why we should care. There's a high burden of proof when you go against an established field of study and for good reason. I can tell you why Theoretical and Mathematical Biology is important. For computer modeling. It is opening the field for using analytic models to recreate biological behavior and can eliminate the need for test subjects. It's like Macroeconomics and the benefit of modeling economic systems and predict its behavior. It all comes down to the quality of the model itself though. A couple of Complex/Mathematical/Systems Biology research centers: http://www.smb.org/index.shtml http://www.esmtb.org/ http://mathbio.nimr....Biology_at_NIMR http://bip.weizmann.ac.il/index.html Sir, by showing evidence that Rosen's work may have some use you are 'going against the grain', you are stepping outside of 'established' scientific thought. You are not a like minded sheep thinker. Because, you have chosen to put forth an opinion (truly from your heart) that conflicts with the majority here , and because of my rigid thinking, I have no choice but to deem you a troll. Remember, just because someone is a DOCTOR and wrote a TEXTBOOK, doesn't mean he is allowed to challenge the ideas of other DOCTORs who wrote other TEXTBOOKS. ok, just kidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 It'd be a refreshing change of pace if you did actually improve anybody's ideas, Legion. So far you've been busy shifting burden of proof, asserting things without evidence, and then acting out when called on it. Really, what's the difference between you and a fundamentalist? Jay acts exactly like this. I look forward to seeing you actually say something constructive, because so far, you haven't been. PS: The way you use the term "balance" reminds me powerfully of the ID crowd's insistence that schools "teach the controversy." 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted October 9, 2012 Super Moderator Share Posted October 9, 2012 But I've tried to take the "high road" for years, and that doesn't seem to be working. Perhaps it's not how your assertions are presented, but that most people disagree with them - when they can understand them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 BD didn't suggest you study anything, but I certainly did. Ouch! And to his point, it would do him alot of good to do so. XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galien Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 And why we should care. There's a high burden of proof when you go against an established field of study and for good reason. Where am I going against an established field? Evolution is a fact. It's just a poorly understood fact. Imagine that we have before us two children at the age of 7. One of them says, "I already understand." The other says, "I wish I had more understanding." Which one do you think will one day understand? Most people don't even understand themselves Legion. Until we get that basic thing right who gives a shit about evolution? Doesn't matter how we got here if we cannot work out what the fuck we are doing or why now that we are here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMandeville Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Sir, by showing evidence that Rosen's work may have some use you are 'going against the grain', you are stepping outside of 'established' scientific thought. You are not a like minded sheep thinker. Because, you have chosen to put forth an opinion (truly from your heart) that conflicts with the majority here , and because of my rigid thinking, I have no choice but to deem you a troll. Remember, just because someone is a DOCTOR and wrote a TEXTBOOK, doesn't mean he is allowed to challenge the ideas of other DOCTORs who wrote other TEXTBOOKS. ok, just kidding. From the heart? One's emotional investment in something they believe to be true has no bearing on whether or not it actually is. Good grief, guys. I challenge Legion's claim of truth on grounds of evidence and utility. I don't especially care as to the content of the claim itself. Can it be proven, and can it be proven to be useful? Evolution has been over sold. It has been cried from every mountain top. It has been reflected in every river. So let me get this straight: you think evolution has been oversold and lacks sufficient proof and practical use (tell that to Jonas Salk), but Rosen's unproven theories are the key to understanding biology? Do you honestly think there's a single, unifying equation that will explain all the mysteries of life as a natural phenomenon? Do you really think that life as we know it can have this as-yet-untestable "whole" or "otherness" that is both more than and distinct from the mere sum of its components? This isn't a disagreement or methodological quibble; it's sheer insanity. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I do maintain that you're contradicting both yourself and conventional science. You know, the same science that is responsible for your flu shot, your medications, and your water filtration. Organism has yet to be understood. So what? Does that give us a license to speculate at will? Spare me the arguments from ignorance, especially those contingent upon your own. Well, I just don't get you guys then. We can sit here at ex-C and piss on other people's ideas. But we could also work together to improve our own. Frankly, I don't want to be someone who tries to generate ideas, while others only play the role of being skeptical and critical of them. I understand that the weighing and sifting of ideas entails testing them, but some balance would be cool too. Balance out testing with what, blind faith? Emotional appeal? You're kidding, right? When you put ideas into a public forum, they are subject to public scrutiny. Don't come out with a chip on your shoulder over the unimpeachable rightness of an idea to which you wholly subscribe and then get all butthurt when someone rains on your parade by being honest with you. This contrarian nonsense is absolutely ridiculous. We get it. You guys are rebels. You're not sheep. Science is made up of people who just believe theories regardless of their utility or proof, and they're all stuck-up academics who vote Democrat, to boot. You guys have figured it all out. Watch out, folks. We've got ourselves a couple of badasses over here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 It's always a good idea to keep asking the big questions anyway. Always. Helps us catch things we might otherwise overlook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 So let me get this straight: you think evolution has been oversold and lacks sufficient proof.... No, you are clearly misunderstanding me. How many times do I have to say it? Terrestrial evolution is true. It's as close to a certainty as science is able to get. But it has been over sold. It's like having a toaster which toasts bread to near perfection. and because it is able to do this task in a near perfect fashion to then imbue it with powers it does not have. Like... "Wow, this toaster can really toast some bread. I bet this thing could travel to Mars." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 It seems some of you guys have been trying to smack me around a bit, so I feel free to be honest here. I have to conclude from some of these proceedings that some of you are almost pathetically insecure. It's almost as if the idea of evolution is some sort of panacea for you. Like inside you something like this is occurring... "I know about evolution! And it's The Truth! And I am among those who have the balls to accept evolution, while those people (they, them, "over there") don't have the guts to accept it." Basically it's sort of like a tribal-religious thing for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeasabird Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 So let me get this straight: you think evolution has been oversold and lacks sufficient proof.... No, you are clearly misunderstanding me. How many times do I have to say it? Terrestrial evolution is true. It's as close to a certainty as science is able to get. But it has been over sold. It's like having a toaster which toasts bread to near perfection. and because it is able to do this task in a near perfect fashion to then imbue it with powers it does not have. Like... "Wow, this toaster can really toast some bread. I bet this thing could travel to Mars." Though I do tire of asking the same question over and over, I will once more. An example please, from a well known biologist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 An example please,... An example of what? Just what kind of example do you want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeasabird Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 For being smart you are pretty fucking dense. An example, please, of where evolution has been 'over sold'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 "Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is the only workable explanation that has ever been proposed for the remarkable fact of our own existence, indeed the existence of all life wherever it may turn up in the universe. It is the only known explanation for the rich diversity of animals, pants, fungi and bacteria." - Richard Dawkins This is an example, in my opinion, of over selling the idea. Again let me repeat for the dunderheads out there that EVOLUTION IS A FACT. It helps us understand, in part, why species change over time. That is, it helps us see into how terrestrial species CAME INTO existence. But it does not explain why they exist AT THIS VERY MOMENT. This basically deals with a well known distinction in philosophy of epistemology and ontology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Let me put it a bit more sucinctly... If Richard Dawkins gets sick, he doesn't visit an evolutionist; he visits a doctor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts