Ad Hominem? (Or the relevance of qualifications)

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

Like I said, no offence intended. And I appreciate your comments. however, I have decided not to pursue Scientific related topics for now.

Richard

[Bill_II]

@RichardG

The problem with my science qualifications is that they are not Evolution specific so I have no authority to even speculate let alone postulate.

You are certainly free to speculate as much as you like. The problem is people are not going to change their mind based solely on your speculations. Any thing you postulate is going to be questioned and rightly so. My only problem is your arguments are based on a not quite right understanding of what evolution actually says.

@RichardG

It is impossible for science to accept anything that is not data-based. That is not my assertion that is what I am being told.

Because that is the way it works. If you want to counter a theory that has been confirmed you have to do it with data that the current theory can’t explain (see Thomas Kuhn). For instance, saying nested hierarchies are only an illusion will not be accepted no matter how many times or ways you repeat the idea. There is too much data that would have to be explained in an alternative way.

Einstein came up with the idea for relativity from his own imagination. However, it wasn’t accepted until

1. He established the mathematical basis
2. The math made predictions
3. The predictions were confirmed by measurements

If you want to question his theory now you have to make some observations (data) that don’t agree with his theory. Just arguing ideas isn’t going to cut it.

You may not like it, but this is the way science works.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

Vanity.

How dare anyone claim that:
I do not know anything?
Need to adjust my thinking?
There is something I might have missed.
Something I might have misunderstood
I might even be wrong.
(Choose which apply)

Do they not know that I am:
AN MSC
Microbiologist
Been working on EAvolution for X number of years
A moderator
Over 70 years old
Other
(Choose which apply)

I know I am nothing, I even depend on God.

But (insert Chorus of "Because that is what I think or would be doing)

It must be teaching
It must be a case of winning or losing
It must be due to the persons’s qualifications (been there already)
It must be… whatever you want to impose on my reasons or motivations.

You can look at me or you can look in a miroir.

Richard

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

You have said it yourself, this forum has not the authority to change anything the world thinks so why would anyone, including me, think that they could “teach”.

Perhaps . . . just maybe . . . you could learn something from us. I and many others here actually work in the biological and medical sciences. We are more than willing to answer questions about biology.

@RichardG

It doesn’t matter what data is shown, if you are only going to look at it the same way you are never going to identify anything different…

The first hurdle you need to get over is confusing your opinion with data.

@RichardG

The problem with my science qualifications is that they are not Evolution specific so I have no authority to even speculate let alone postulate.

It has nothing to do with being evolution specific. It is a lack of knowledge about biology in general that reduces the authority of your opinions about the biological sciences. For example:

“I will freely admit that I was not aware of the current predilection with DNA and microbiology, nor did I know about herd and neutral drift theory.”

DNA is not a current predilection. It has been a cornerstone of the biological sciences and the theory of evolution for about 50 years now. The importance of microbiology goes back even further than that. It’s as if someone wades into a group of doctors, makes a bunch of opinion based pronouncements about all of medical science being wrong, and then is surprised to hear about this new fangled thing called antibiotics.

And I don’t mean any of this as an insult. Your knowledge of biology is really no different than the vast majority of the public.

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

You can look at me or you can look in a miroir.

Ok. Mirror it is.

I am an author on several scientific peer reviewed papers. My experience includes DNA/RNA sequencing, mapping the transcriptome of viral genomes, genetically modifying bacterial and viral genomes, running animal studies for biomedical research, data analysis for genomics and metabolomics projects, novel assay development, flow cytometry, and a whole host of other skills and research projects. I would never, ever, wade into debate about science and claim that math and statistics shouldn’t be used in biological research. If I said such a thing to a group of my peers I would be laughed out of the room, and rightly so. I also wouldn’t make such claims about DNA not proving anything. Again, I would be laughed out of the room, and rightly so.

If anything, I have shown you WAY more patience than I would have shown any of my peers. All I am hoping is that you take a step back and realize you may not know as much as you think you do.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@RichardG

That has never been my intention.

Well, great. I wasn’t talking about you. Though it is true I have ignored everything you have written about evolution because you clearly don’t understand it.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

I am deliberately not going to respond to specifics. (some of them made me smile)

When you are offered a view or opinion there are three basic responses.

1 reject it immediately
2 assert your alternative( because it is the only possible one)
3 consider what is presented.

I get mostyly 1 or 2 (and get accused of 1 or 2)

3 is the one few will attempt. And there are many reasons for it.

It may involve a viewpoint that is unfamiliar or even alien.
It does not contain new data as such, so you must have already reached the right conclusions
It may involve data that you are unfamiliar with, or do not consider relevant.
It may involve effort that you are not prepared to make
Or there is the ad hominem, vanity or other things already suggested.

And, horror of horrors it may involve you adjusting your own view or even learning something yourself. "(Heaven forbid!)

However, if you at least try and understand, you will find that the end result is much more amicable. You can still reject it, but you can give answers that show you understood why it was suggested instead of casting scorn or ignorance as the reasons.

I am not asking you to accept what I say blindly I just don;t want to hear

@Christy

I have ignored everything you have written about evolution because you clearly don’t understand it.

That is dismissive, judgmental, elitist and everything I have ever accused you of.

Richard,

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

I am bowing out now. II have said my pieces. You can now find mutual agreement about me in peace.

Richard

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@RichardG

It does not contain new data as such, so you must have already reached the right conclusions

In the main, this is it. You have not presented any arguments which are compelling or novel with respect to evolution.

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

When you are offered a view or opinion there are three basic responses.

1 reject it immediately
2 assert your alternative( because it is the only possible one)
3 consider what is presented.

4. Consider what is presented, and then reject it because it doesn’t comport with reality.
5. Consider what is presented, and then withhold judgment until evidence can be produced to back the opinion.

If someone comes in to these forums claiming the Earth is flat, have we not considered what they are saying because we still think the Earth is round? Do we have to adjust our views until we also believe the Earth is flat?

@RichardG

And, horror of horrors it may involve you adjusting your own view or even learning something yourself. "(Heaven forbid!)

However, if you at least try and understand, you will find that the end result is much more amicable. You can still reject it, but you can give answers that show you understood why it was suggested instead of casting scorn or ignorance as the reasons.

I think that is good advice for everyone.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@RichardG

That is dismissive, judgmental, elitist and everything I have ever accused you of.

As has already been explained to you - there is nothing “elitist” about choosing to pay more attention to sources that have demonstrated more attention to evidence (reality) and so know more about the relevant subject.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

I wonder what the ratio of those assenting to the rational truth of evolution is, to those assenting to Richard’s particular truth, if it’s more than he?

[Bill_II]

@Klax

Richard’s particular truth

There is probably a fair number of people that believe in a old Earth, special creation, and evolution (micro only).

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Bill_II

@Klax

Richard’s particular truth

There is probably a fair number of people that believe in a old Earth, special creation, and evolution (micro only).

Yes but how many believe it his way? Do they all constantly attack rationality, or just proclaim their faith?

[Bill_II]

@Klax

Yes but how many believe it his way?

Unknown to me. The OEC folk already accept most branches of science so don’t tend to hang out here. At least I don’t remember any. But Richard does have a unique style. Which includes never coming out and saying his position is faith based.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@Klax

or just proclaim their faith?

I wouldn’t have much problem that unless it is unresponsive to the point in question. It is only the attempt to dress it up as more than which I find objectionable.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Bill_II

@Klax

Yes but how many believe it his way?

Unknown to me. The OEC folk already accept most branches of science so don’t tend to hang out here. At least I don’t remember any. But Richard does have a unique style. Which includes never coming out and saying his position is faith based.

What else could it be based on? That’s the only possible justification for denying rationality.

@MarkD

@Klax

or just proclaim their faith?

I wouldn’t have much problem that unless it is unresponsive to the point in question. It is only the attempt to dress it up as more than which I find objectionable.

Me neither. I’m not aware of any group that denies science with their own definition of science without a ‘faith’ position. Has he claimed any at all? Are there atheists who deny science?

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@Klax

Are there atheists who deny science?

Rare. Certainly plenty who are not.that familiar with science or really all that interested in its particulars either But their faith in its ability to answer all questions seems to know no bounds. The most extreme cases extend that faith to AI.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

How sweetly sophomoric.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

I wasn’t intending to continue but this is beyond a joke or insults

Rule no1 in any argument or discussion.

Know and understand what your opponent thinks or believes

How idiotic do you really think I am?
(don’t answer that)

And I can also tell you now that no one here knows what I know or believe, nor has tried to understand it. (because I am a crackpot!)

Richard