The summer 2011 totally legitimate and like official atheist thread, endorsed too

[IdolEyes787]

Scientists want everything proven, consequentially they take nothing on faith .The irony is when something is "proven" they steadfastly hold to that fact beyond all logic forgetting that many things past "proven" have since been discredited.

[mjmacky]

1. First hand knowledge is when you do research yourself. Second hand knowledge is when you read and understand the research. Third hand knowledge is when you take the above two for granted (aka classroom learning), put trust in them, and then go around preaching without knowing jack shit. So, where along those lines did the last category of people turn into a blind believers (which the creationists are)? I'll leave it to you; to figure that out.

From what I gathered then, based on your earlier message, you assume no one can rightfully speak on the subject of evolution unless they are directly affiliated with the research involved? Using your ranking, we should all aspire to be second hand learners. That same ranking doesn't apply to creationist "theory", as there is no evidence to support it. I may be tame regarding my objections to religion and spirituality, but creationist theory is garbage. It's not even comparable to asking whether or not god exists. Pitting evolution against creationism is the equivalent of pitting the law of gravity against the idea that everything in the world is being pushed to the ground by an army of invisible locusts (i.e. it's a joke). I wouldn't mind explaining evolutionary theory to someone who wants to know more, whether they be simple-minded or advanced. I would not explain it to a creationist though. Why? Because I won't talk to them, there are certain kinds of stupid I find too irritating to tolerate.

http://www.americanscientist.org/ is a science journal ...

So you're talking about American Scientist, the journal. The question remains, what does AmSci have to do with anything?

I get it. You want a philosophical debate for which the source is nothingness; but, I like to sit on the fence and watch both sides destroy the imaginary philosophical castles. Lets part ways.

That's one way to pussyfoot around a topic. There's no such thing as "the fence", it's an illusion of neutrality that people put up to avoid having arguments directed at them. You have a preference that you're not disclosing. It wouldn't bother me if you keep it to yourself, but if you want something off your chest, feel free to unload.

P.S: When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I matured, my talks matured, my thoughts matured, my reasoning matured. Still the world is a mystery to me. Therefore, I can only hope there is another plane of thinking, to which I transcend, so as to make sense of another layer of abstraction. So said the Master Zen Guru, AbyBeats. (And yea, I know what you are going to write next megabyteme)

It's not possible to grasp every concept, there were always be mystery, even if they're understood by others. Seeking another plane? You've probably already been made aware of its existence, but just haven't acknowledged it yet. Other than that, you basically described aging, it's a natural occurrence, nothing really mysterious about it.

[A]

I don't know if you are sleep deprived, or if its failure on my part to make the points clear, but surely you are not comprehending what I have written from my 3rd post on. Even the pun on girl reading American Scientist went un-noticed

Also:

That's one way to pussyfoot around a topic. There's no such thing as "the fence", it's an illusion of neutrality that people put up to avoid having arguments directed at them. You have a preference that you're not disclosing. It wouldn't bother me if you keep it to yourself, but if you want something off your chest, feel free to unload.

Yea right, I believe ya. My opinion in this matter is clearly and concisely presented in the very first post I made. But you say "neutrality" is an illusion. I say "taking sides" is another illusion.

[mjmacky]

Scientists want everything proven, consequentially they take nothing on faith .The irony is when something is "proven" they steadfastly hold to that fact beyond all logic forgetting that many things past "proven" have since been discredited.

You say that like it applies to all scientists, that's disingenuous. Scientific method or experimental design is based around a hypothesis. Whether it could be lightly supported, heavily supported, or just creative thought, its validity is tested against observations. In fact, it takes a bit of faith to address a question. Even if the notion has no support, it is typically founded on logical and analogous reasoning. However, you'd be hard pressed to find a researcher out there beating the same dead horse their entire career.

Having a well tested theory become outright discredited is rare. Many of the major falsehoods were based on coincidental observations, or metaphysical fantasy and even the bible. Some of them were sound attempts to describe what happens in our world (e.g. phlogiston). Aside from those highly famed but ultimately insignificant representations of scientific theory, when something doesn't match, there's a new factor that is identified and the theory is updated. That's in fact how we progress at all. So I'm saying that scientists who "steadfastly hold to that fact beyond all logic" is a poor reflection of the reality. If that was the case, science would be almost as bad as creationism.

[mjmacky]

I don't know if you are sleep deprived, or if its failure on my part to make the points clear, but surely you are not comprehending what I have written from my 3rd post on. Even the pun on girl reading American Scientist went un-noticed

I'm sticking to the less fun, more serious version of myself for this thread, sorry if I brush off the lighter comments.

Edit: If you feel your stance has been misinterpreted, nothing is stopping you from clarifying.

Yea right, I believe ya. My opinion in this matter is clearly and concisely presented in the very first post I made. But you say "neutrality" is an illusion. I say "taking sides" is another illusion.

Taking a side is pretty clear, whether or not it's being faked. Genuine apathy is another matter though. I still call bullshit on fencesitting. Not like there's a sharp divide, but that when provided a context there's always a bias.

[A]

Edit: If you feel your stance has been misinterpreted, nothing is stopping you from clarifying.

Nah, too much work. Re-reading when you are at peace or something will do, I guess.

Taking a side is pretty clear, whether or not it's being faked. Genuine apathy is another matter though. I still call bullshit on fencesitting. Not like there's a sharp divide, but that when provided a context there's always a bias.

Provided such a context, where your reasoning mind finds some logic for being biased. When there is none or when uncertainty plays a major factor, I feel comfortable sitting in the middle.

[megabyteme]

P.S: When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I matured, my talks matured, my thoughts matured, my reasoning matured. Still the world is a mystery to me. Therefore, I can only hope there is another plane of thinking, to which I transcend, so as to make sense of another layer of abstraction. So said the Master Zen Guru, AbyBeats. (And yea, I know what you are going to write next megabyteme)

Interesting how that seems to fit with the idea I threw out regarding additional dimensions. And I am talking about well-known physicists. I'll see if I can find descriptions of those other (apparently mathematically proven) dimensions. They are interesting to try to imagine, if nothing else.

[devilsadvocate]

Scientists want everything proven, consequentially they take nothing on faith .The irony is when something is "proven" they steadfastly hold to that fact beyond all logic forgetting that many things past "proven" have since been discredited.

Example?

[mjmacky]

Taking a side is pretty clear, whether or not it's being faked. Genuine apathy is another matter though. I still call bullshit on fencesitting. Not like there's a sharp divide, but that when provided a context there's always a bias.

Provided such a context, where your reasoning mind finds some logic for being biased. When there is none or when uncertainty plays a major factor, I feel comfortable sitting in the middle.

There's always a context, that's the point. It can't really be apathy either, for you've already posted.

[mjmacky]

Scientists want everything proven, consequentially they take nothing on faith .The irony is when something is "proven" they steadfastly hold to that fact beyond all logic forgetting that many things past "proven" have since been discredited.

Example?

Evangelical scientists? Actually there's another public figure biologist, can't recall his name though.