What is "anti-science"?

[Roy]

[QUOTE=Joel;448299]

Are you referring to the Wedge Document? I've read it. Not only does it not contain an admission of lying,...

Please provide the quote(s), if otherwise. It's possible I missed or forgot something.

What you missed is the ridiculousness of your expectation that a bunch of liars would explicitly admit to being a bunch of liars.

As a reminder, what we are discussing is HMS_Beagle saying in post #136, "Professional ID-Creationists are propaganda merchants. They publish blatant lies which they know are blatant lies".

I interpreted him to mean that they publish ID-Creationism while knowing that ID-Creationism is false. It didn't occur to me that he meant anything else.

If I understand you here (and please correct me if I'm mistaken), you would say (and HMS_Beagle meant to say) that they do believe in ID-Creationism but are knowingly lying about certain tangential things in an attempt to persuade people of what they believe to be the truth about ID-Creationism. (I say tangential, because they couldn't be things essential to ID-Creationism, or else then they would know that ID-Creationism is false.) If that's the case then I gladly acknowledge that I misunderstood what HMS_Beagle said.

I think you misunderstood, and are still misunderstanding since I did not say why they act the way they do, and although Beagle did, the reason he gave is very different from the one you have given here.

I think a good practice of discussion is to rephrase one's understanding of what the other person has said, so that the other person can know either that I understood correctly, or that I misunderstood, so that the misunderstanding can be corrected. But instead of correcting any misunderstandings, I just get accused of twisting the other person's words and being duplicitous.

That's because your rephrasings bear little resemblance to what was said, and you persist in them even after being corrected.

[oxmixmudd]

Because I would say that science is a methodology of questioning and testing/observing, and not that (e.g. results) which is produced by the methodology. It then would follow that someone who embraces the methodology (even just in isolation) cannot be said to be anti-science.

Very interesting Joel. How can one embrace the methodology of science but not embrace the results of that methodology? I would liken that to saying one believes tomatoes are good to eat and then panicking and taking ones child to the hospital upon learning he/she ate a tomato. (please don't obfuscate that by postulating that particular tomoato was poisoned. The analogy is the simple form which illustrates the obvious conflict)

Jim

[tabibito]

Very interesting Joel. How can one embrace the methodology of science but not embrace the results of that methodology? I would liken that to saying one believes tomatoes are good to eat and then panicking and taking ones child to the hospital upon learning he/she ate a tomato. (please don't obfuscate that by postulating that particular tomoato was poisoned. The analogy is the simple form which illustrates the obvious conflict)

Jim

Easy done. Just ditch anything you don't like as being tainted data. No scientist worth his salt will include tainted data in his considerations.

[HMS_Beagle]

Merely pointing to the Document including the quote you gave didn't clear up the misunderstanding, because I thought we were saying that they knew their anti-materialism/theism/creationism was false and so even that quote would leave unanswered the question why they wanted to overthrow what they believe to be true and replace it with what they believe to be false. Thank you for your other comments here that have corrected my misunderstanding.

Just thought I'd peek in. I see Joel is still dishonestly misrepresenting what was said to him and still ignoring the explanations he was given. More confirming evidence for the disingenuous troll hypothesis.

[Joel]

Just thought I'd peek in. I see Joel is still dishonestly misrepresenting what was said to him and still ignoring the explanations he was given. More confirming evidence for the disingenuous troll hypothesis.

I think you misunderstood, and are still misunderstanding since I did not say why they act the way they do, and although Beagle did, the reason he gave is very different from the one you have given here.

That's because your rephrasings bear little resemblance to what was said, and you persist in them even after being corrected.

Then I guess I still misunderstand what you and HMS_Beagle are saying.

[Joel]

I concede that if the definition of science requires giving epistemological weight to the process of interpersonal correcting/checking, then refusing to give any weight to it is anti-science.

[oxmixmudd]

I concede that if the definition of science requires giving epistemological weight to the process of interpersonal correcting/checking, then refusing to give any weight to it is anti-science.

This comment is revealing of what you don't understand about science joel. Science is not about interpersonal relations, nor is it about differences of opinion. It is about the unbiased applIication of a process according to certain undeniable rules of logic and mathematics. If one accepts the process itself as valid, then one necessarily accepts all valid applications of it. The only room for argument comes in the assessment of the implementation of the methodology or the proper application of logic and mathematics to derive the results. That is my point. You can't say that what we call the scientific method is valid in one moment and then turn around and reject repeatedly validated results that derive from the application of that same method.

Jim

[shunyadragon]

I concede that if the definition of science requires giving epistemological weight to the process of interpersonal correcting/checking, then refusing to give any weight to it is anti-science.

Concede, concede what??? This does not make sense and only adds to the confusion. The processes of science does not give any weight to interpersonal correcting/checking?, what ever that means. I agree with Oxmixmudd here.

This needs further explanation in terms scientists can understand.

[TheLurch]

This needs further explanation in terms scientists can understand.

I think he's referring to things like communicating results, peer review, and building on the work of other scientists.

[shunyadragon]

I think he's referring to things like communicating results, peer review, and building on the work of other scientists.

Ok, but an odd way of describing this.

Are you his translator between Joel language and scientific English?