pcs

1. It has not been established that Deutsch's resume played any role in his appointment. 2. How does assuming your conclusion in the premises constitute valid reasoning? So the allegation is supported by...um...itself? How is that valid reasoning? And I gather you take that on faith, right?

Why? Because swansont said so? C'mon, JS. What do you think?

Bush-Cheney Reelect was active in 2003. And how are you connecting this fluff to the issue of when Deutsch's resume was issued and transmited? Actually, it has nothing to do with the defense.

My view is you've alleged Deutsch's dishonesty without a factual and reasonable basis. I point to the absence of any evidence or valid reasoning on your part to establish your case. I'd go further to say that you're allegations stem entirely from a cynicism (it's human nature to lie) that quite frankly means we wouldn't get along IRL, but that's my own personal view.

Are you at all interested in Severian or Padren's remarks? Heh, maybe it's just your way.

Don't you have anything to say about Severian and padren's exchange? Or are you and y on some other tip? Yeah, okay that works. So why the grudge?

Why are you so hung up on that?

I see you're back on script. Ciao.

That would be the parsimony point. And thank you for putting down the script for a post or two.

I said the model makes all the same predictions. Just one is teleological. Clearly this isn't an additional distinguishing factor to parsimony. Sure it does. It makes the same predictions Newtonian gravity does. And a supernatural term. Which brings me back to my question, what besides parsimony is the distinguishing characteristic? I think we're going to have to disagree here. A scientific theory needs to be testable. A theory that makes no predictions whatsoever may still still be falsified on explanatory grounds. That's unless we're using the term "prediction" to refer to refer to the discovery of evidence in directly unobserved processes. In any case, the broader scientific community would attach an additional constraint--parsimony under methodological naturalism--that would automatically exclude supernatural terms. But if you don't care about parsimony, then what's the big deal?

Thank you for restating what I've already said. Now put the script down.

I'm not so sure you do. gsc, lmtr

No, I'm arguing because I don't believe the point you're trying to make. And neither should anyone, quite frankly. It's so poorly put together. You take that on faith? You know, in my experience a good discussion consists of more than one or two line replies, so how about you and I dive into the meat of whatever the hell we were talking about yesterday.

Strawman, argument from ignorance, equivocation, tu quoque! I think I did. Put down the script and read it. You have all the information you need at your fingertips to answer that question. Maybe not. If I were Hans Reinherdt, if SFN was the Cygnus, and if this thread were a big gaping Black Hole. Yes, because according to your hypothesis any attempt to alter that demographic is doomed to failure for some reason you've yet to explain. Seriously, just because Sayonara said it doesn't mean you have to use the that 'goal posts' phrase every other post. Your a few years too late. How do you make the leap from thirty years of Soviet-style graduate agriculture studies (and presumably one of many broader indictments of science and technical education in Communist countries) to the narrower aim of introducing supernatural dicta into the definition of science?

Because I'm an atheist who pretty much agrees with you. Except where it concerns silly things like y's folk belief in the Church espousing an FE theory and stuff like that.

Tell you what. Here's some homework for you. Go through SFN's archives and catalogue a good size sample of answers to that very question. Pay particular attention to when the question was asked in direct response to a point on policy in this forum. Then ask yourself if reading from a script is the best way to carry out a discussion. The stakes and returns in that game are too low for my tastes. Yippee. How you going to get others to see it your way? Now you've finally stumbled into a policy discussion. Okay, you have a hypothesis; an education policy that deviates from the existing standard definition from science will not succeed (either in its aims or its longevity, you weren't exactly clear on that point). What does the literature say on this question? Wait until we get to the "defects in secularist political organization" discussion. If we get to it...

Or false. Well, something new for you to investigate.

We can save truth and justification for Philosophy. On the other hand, science education, to beat a dead horse, is a policy question.

I don't think bitching about it amounts to facing your problems. I'm pretty sure the Wedge Document authors, at the very least, have a very different definition of science than you do. And he who controls the universities wins. Science education, on the other hand, is. To certain groups, as you point out mostly over 10. You should no better than that.

There is a hypothesis that populations tend to score high on RWA, and you definitely have your own hypothesis there about the role conformity to group norms plays in our political, social and religious choices. It also belabors the point to note most people regardless of their nationality do not receive a college level education period, let alone one in the life sciences, philosophy or religion. So wouldn't your hypothesis also predict that Europeans are generally more secular for the same reasons?

Like Santa Claus?

Well, they can get elected to legislatures, governorships, school boards and even the Presidency. They can appoint judges, regents, and they can move on an agenda to remake science education to their liking or undermine it in ways that achieve the dual objectives of breaking the secularist grip on academia while reducing the public cost of education. Oh, and they can probably do other things as well.

Are you in the habit of believing things without requisite evidence? Not a very strong position for someone with your views.

This is an argument from incredulity--"it is inconceivable that something so utterly supported empirically, even if indirectly, can be wrong." It's the flip side to a creationist arguing that the absence of direct observational evidence disproves theory. And both are examples of why theory is falsified only by evidence, not by a value judgement pertaining to relative parsimony. Exactly, just as evolution has nothing to do with how accurate ID/YEC are. And I'm sure you'll find a strawman to argue that with you. I don't think we'd agree here at all, and even so the following... ....doesn't necessarily follow and is actually incorrect factually. Polling definitely shows that in the United States at least belief in ID is on the same order of magnitude as disbelief. I don't have the polling on geocentrism, but either it's as popular as both ID and evolution or its not and the above just doesn't hold. This came out of left field, but please tell me what sort of Bayesian inference leads you to believe that electrical science, which is represented fully within an observable context, is less likely to be correct than theories which invest explanatory power into the unobservable? Presumably around the same time the Church innovated what we in modern times know as science. I've already demolished your reasoning for why you think that will happen. So will you now hold to this on faith?

Go here.