DescentBB

Posted: **Sat Mar 20, 2010 6:39 pm**

aw lol, that's funny. I get one little detail wrong and everyone dogpiles on me. It's been a while since I've read about Galileo. the brain tends to forget small details like that.

either way, he was punished for his \"progressive\" statement.

Are you talking about both sides as in Dems and Repubs? If that's the case you're way out in left field and I'm no longer even following you. I was talking about a social movement that happens to have a great degree of political influence also, not simply a political entity somehow managing to totally manipulate the population.

c'mon. being vague isn't your strong suit. I know your 'social movement' phrase means 'progressive', and you keep blaming progressives for a lot of ills in the world, especially in this case.

Have you ever wondered if maybe Evolutionary Theory could be the present-day \"perceived belief\"?

hehe, nice little red herring you threw in, but hey. i'm kind of hungry so I'll bite.

An entire body of biological science would like to have a word with you regarding this \"perceived belief\" you think modern science has.

\"Evolution is just a theory, not a fact\". This is an easily digestible sound bite intended to show that evolution is just an unproven hypothesis, like any other, and thus should not be taught in schools as if it were fact. Actually, evolution is both a theory and a fact. A fact is something we observe in the world, and a theory is our best explanation for it. Stephen Jay Gould famously addressed this argument by pointing out that the fact of gravity is that things fall, and our theory of gravity began with Isaac Newton and was later replaced by Einstein's improved theory. The current state of our theory to explain gravity does not affect the fact that things fall. Similarly, Darwin's original theory of evolution was highly incomplete and had plenty of errors. Today's theory is still incomplete but it's a thousand times better than it was in Darwin's day. But the state of our explanation does not affect the observed fact that species evolve over time.

Evolution is not falsifiable, therefore it's not science. One of the fundamentals of any science is that it's falsifiable. If a test can be derived that, if it were to fail, falsified a proposition, then that proposition meets a basic test of being a science. Something that cannot be tested and falsified, like the existence of gods, is therefore not a science. Creationists accept this to the point that they use it as an argument against evolution's status as a science.

holy crap! it's so progressive!

I'm sure that would be fascinating, if I ever have time to waste on something that has, according to your usual posting style, only barely been dangled in front of me in a very vague manner.

aw LOL. you never cease to put a smile on my face. You should know by now I don't do anyone's work for them. I can show you what you need to know before continuing, but it's up to you to actually do the work. But hey if you think it's a waste of time, that's your prerogative. It won't help you, though.

Posted: **Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:04 pm**

Ferno wrote:c'mon. being vague isn't your strong suit. I know your 'social movement' phrase means 'progressive', and you keep blaming progressives for a lot of ills in the world, especially in this case.

Congratulations, "progressive" was understood and you got it! Not bad.

Ferno wrote:You should know by now I don't do anyone's work for them.

Not asking you to, but it's a good idea to at least demonstrate to someone in a little detail why they need to look into something. How would you take to it if I gave you a brief sentence every now and then summarily saying that you're dead wrong and [this] book at your local library will show you why, when you're pretty sure you're right. Off to the library again? You're a champ.

Ferno wrote:An entire body of biological science would like to have a word with you regarding this "perceived belief" you think modern science has.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the science, for the most part. It's the interpretation/assumption that people buy into and even start with that I don't agree on. Fact x Fact = undiscovered or complex fact (interpretation/guess), for example. They've passed from science into speculation, though science certainly does allow for this as a method, then you get people (perhaps the same people) who take these interpretation and mistakenly call it fact, or stand on it as if it is fact. Sorry, I believe some of their basic assumptions are wrong. They're starting from the wrong point, and even though a lot of their "science" is plausible under a cursory examination (and only that, sometimes), I say their conclusions are totally wrong.

Posted: **Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:35 pm**

By the way, I don't blame progressives for the ills of the world, but I think that progressivism has amassed a pretty good share of the bad ideas that cause and have caused a lot of them. I think that people who subscribe to progressive/liberal ideas do so for certain amoral or naive reasons, and that the ideology itself and it's perception of the world has accurately been compared to that of a spoiled child's.

Progressivism is a way for people with wrong motivations to do what's \"right\". And that in and of itself is a scary-stupid, though unvoiced, goal. All of those people that Obama brought on that weren't even upstanding enough to pay all of their taxes are now working for the greater good of this country. Let me let you in on a little secret, that's not the way things work--that's not the way people work. On a moral level nobody fails until it really counts and then succeeds. People can make it look like that's what's happening, but it's a lie.

Posted: **Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:48 am**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Congratulations, "progressive" was understood and you got it! Not bad.

yeah, it's called studying with none of the bullcrap!

Not asking you to, but it's a good idea to at least demonstrate to someone in a little detail why they need to look into something. How would you take to it if I gave you a brief sentence every now and then summarily saying that you're dead wrong and [this] book at your local library will show you why, when you're pretty sure you're right. Off to the library again? You're a champ.

what one can post in two paragraphs, I can post in two sentences. Brevity is usually better. It delivers the message clearly without drowning out the message.

I like how you're trying to be sardonic. It's kinda funny really. And yes, books ARE your friend. you should try em sometime.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the science, for the most part. It's the interpretation/assumption that people buy into and even start with that I don't agree on. Fact x Fact = undiscovered or complex fact (interpretation/guess), for example. They've passed from science into speculation, though science certainly does allow for this as a method, then you get people (perhaps the same people) who take these interpretation and mistakenly call it fact, or stand on it as if it is fact.

do you mean evidential or circumstantial?

Sorry, I believe some of their basic assumptions are wrong. They're starting from the wrong point, and even though a lot of their "science" is plausible under a cursory examination (and only that, sometimes), I say their conclusions are totally wrong.

That's the whole point behind science. Start with a hypothesis and test to see if the hypothesis fits with the findings. Otherwise you have to revise.

Progressivism is a way for people with wrong motivations to do what's "right"

explain these "wrong motivations".

DescentBB

The Texas school board

Re: