Simulation

<a href="http://www.pbreview.com/forums/showthread.php?s=74f7367afbe4af1fd45bf8f1fa58fb98& threadid=35574" target="_blank">Original post found here</a>

Talkorigins
Hey people. I just wanted to address talkorigins.org a little, because so many people quote or direct to them, while I cringe everytime I see the url.. here's a little why. Here's a direct quote from one of their faq's: <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html</a>


"Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

They state that in science "fact" means something else. It doesn't mean absolute certainty. Well, as far as I can remember and in every English dictionary, fact means and is synonymous with: truth, certainty, reality, or actuality. For example, fact: I CANNOT see infra-red light with the naked eye. Fact: Water's boiling temp is 100 degrees celcius. Fact: the earth is a sphere. But yet, "there aint's no such animal in an exciting and complex world."

"BAH!" I say!

The above quote, when compared with any dictionary will tell you that they are talking about theory. This is how evolution is fact and theory, they change the definition of words.

This is where I have a real problem. Talkorigins is an entire site full of semantic fog and re-definitions. They change the definitions of words. Fact means theory in science now? It really looks like they are just blurring the lines. For the Layman, it is totally confusing, they get discouraged and give-up their argument. It reminds me of a Stephen Hawking book I picked up. Stephen Hawking wrote in the preface that he wrote the book for basic english, layman type people. Let me tell you first hand, I have always had high marks in english, I understand more complex sentence and paragraph structures where entire pages don't make sense until you read the whole thing. The Stephen Hawking book was so complex, I could barely understand the theme, let alone details. I know English Professors who couldn't decipher the thing anymore than I could... yet Hawking said he wrote it for the "layman".

This is exactly what I believe Talkorigins.org does. Complete semantic fog. It's like pantheism in that respect: Reality isn't reality, while illusion is reality. Logic isn't "true" logic. There isn't a black or a white, there is only grey. None of this addresses any real issues, it just side-steps and clouds the issues.

This is only a very small example of Talkorigins "tactics". I don't like using that word as it suggests alterior-motives or an agenda, but it really looks that way to me. Other tactics I've seen are when they diffuse creationist counter-points by quoting eachother. This circular reasoning is then presented as an open and shut case.

Some information found at talkorigins.org is very interesting, but I can't stand the blatant manipulation. If anyone wants to see "straight" creationist science, visit ICR.org (institute for creation research).

Of course I don't mean to offend anyone. There are many good websites addressing evolution and their theories. There are also many bad sites on creationism with little fact and manipulation. Both sides have misinformed people, so don't think I saying this to slam evolution. What I said had to be said, I hope you understand.

theyeti

Has it not mabey occured to you that the reason they wrote that article is that scientists and philosophers of science use terms differently than what you find in a dictionary? And that because of this people are easily misled when they hear terms that they have only an everyday understanding of? And that by going back to a dictionary all you're doing is proving their point?

theyeti

Kaina

Hi Simulation,
You obviously feel very strongly about this, while many of us here feel very strongly that TO is a great resource to learn a lot of science. I am certainly not going to change just because you don't like their description of "fact" vs "theory". Your understanding of "fact" seems limited as the facts you list are only true in a certain time or place, or for a certain person.

YOU cannot see infrared light with your naked eye, but that doesn't mean that such a mutation doesn't occur anywhere in the human population, or that it doesn't exist widely in other organisms.

Water boils at 100C ONLY at sea level under standard atmospheric conditions. This "fact" applies nowhere else.

The earth is NOT a sphere, though it may appear so to your eye -- it bulges at the equator.

So, Simulation, what is a "fact"?

daemon

Just as a note, it is not clear that Simulation actually believes or espouses this--it's a copy of a post on another board, which he links at the top of his post here.

DB_Hunter

I think they've hit it right on the dot - a "fact" is confirmed only as far as we can understand it, but can change if we learn new things. Excellent examples follow...

Only at 14.9 psi of atmospheric pressure. At higher pressures, the bp goes up, and at lower pressures, the bp goes down. That's why in chemistry adn physics you use STP - Standard Temperature and Pressure to describe "nominal" conditions - room temperature at sea level.

Nope - flattened sphere. Thr rotation causes the pole-pole circumfrence to be smaller than the circumfrence alone the equator. Jupiter and Saturn are GREATLY flattened, and easily noticable though a small telescope.

Definitions can be different in different fields, and can change to mean totally different ideas than the "original" meaning. Take the word "tank," for example. When you hear the word, you think of either a large, 100-ton armor-plated turrent on tracks, or of a large container for water. In WWI, the Brits sent the newly developered machines to the front, but did not want then to be known to the enemy before an offensive. They were shipped in pieces to be assembled at the lines, in large crates marked "Water Tanks." The name was inside joke that just stuck. Harry Turtledove wrote a set of alternative history books called the American Front. The Americans, when they built their machines, sent them to the front lines in crates marked "Barrels," and so in Turtledove's world, the new machines are called barrels.

They aren't redefining words - they are setting up definitions so that you can follow that they are saying. The problem is when you come in with rigid conceptions of what words MUST mean, and what certain ideas MUST be. When that is challenged, your sense or order is distorted...

Part of the problem is that English is NOT that great of a language for expressing a lot of concepts and ideas. Arabic is a beautiful language that can give a paragraph's worth of description in a few words, but uses cultural metaphors for scientific ideas (at least, it was described that way to me by a Saudi doctor). Polish is very effecting at slinging scathing sarcasm (as evidenced out of my mother's mouth), but isn't a romantic language. English is rich in technical terms, but most are reused from other areas, and describing things like temporal events (vaccuum diagrams, causality, etc.) are a massive headache.

When you've got to deal with the limitations of a language, you set ground rules and baseic definitions, so that EVERYONE is on the same page to begin with.

There's a saying that my memory fails to attribute - "If you're not confused by quantum mechanics, you don't really understand it."

That's not quite it. It's more like "This is true as far as we can tell at this point. There could be more information that might change this piece of information in the future, but for now, this is as good as we can get it.

A good example was recently done my the 2-micrometer galactic survey. We've know for a while that we live in a spiral galaxy. However, we know know the Milky Way is a BARRED spiral - there is a large, cigar-shaped bar of stars and nebulae from which the spiral arms emerge. So, now the old books, magazines, maps, etc., are out of date. We found more information and developed a new portrait of our home galaxy. We did the best we could with the information we did have, but the new information changes in the picture in new and interesting ways.

Logic is always logic - no change in that, but there have always been shades of gray...

Please give examples of this... I've found that usually, they will go back to original source materials as often as possible.

So that what, we will see how they change the definitions of words to suit their own ideas? How they misquote scientists and quote selected (and edited) passages to make it seam that "evolution is a theory in trouble?" "What exactly is a 'kind' of animal?" comes to mind as a definition that creationists don't agree upon... Perhaps you should worry about cleaning your own house before you complain about the mess you think you see in another's.

I'd say that ICR is king of the hill when it comes to misinformation, if not downright lies and possible slander...

DB

CardinalMan

With regards to your comments about books aimed at layman, I ask what you would prefer. I'm currently in the middle of writing a web page about mathematics for the general scientist and interested layman. I'm going to talk about what mathematicians mean when they use the word addition. It may be surprising to you that addition does not always mean the usual addition that you learned in grade school. Are all mathematicians doing something wacky? No, they use the word addition because it carries with it a connotation that helps you see what is happening more clearly. No matter how well you understand English, if you want to make progress learning math (or science), you have to be willing to understand the language of mathematicians (or scientists).

CardinalMan

hezekiah jones

I like the 'reply' post:

Facts are stuff that are absolutly true ... ecxept when they are'nt absolutly true. Okay, thier the same only differnt.

I can only hope this person pops in for a visit.

hezekiah jones

That's a funny board. Check out the first post here:

<a href="http://www.pbreview.com/forums/showthread.php?s=77ee4021f2b446be5661f44d8800e059& threadid=33174" target="_blank">Evolution and racism, sexism</a>

Wow. ICR needs this guy.

&lt;code&gt;

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]</p>

HRG

Do you want to make your readers Abel to understand the concept of a commutative group ?

HRG

CardinalMan

That was a terrible pun. I loved it.

CardinalMan