I don’t know about the debate, but IMO Steve Mathewson and I made a much better connection with the audience.
Thank you for your link. But I think you really should be encouraging people to watch the exchange rather than refer to you own comments. Although using terms like “filibuster”, “philosophical rhetoric”, “canned answer” in regards to Meyer reflects your own insecurity and does nothing to colour Meyer.
Matheson was decimated by Meyer at 46:24 but I give Meyer credit here. Meyer was quick to say that this was not a “got ya” moment but instead a difference of philosophy of science. Hunt continuously claimed some self-replication ruled out any possible CSI structures and was digging the same hole that Matheson found himself in.
Ummm. I post a genuine video of a dialogue between a evolutionary biologist and an ID advocate and ‘Peaceful Science’ goes crazy. Some of my posts are hidden; Patrick watches a 65 minute video in a little over 40 minutes; Curtis demands what is so ‘compelling’ as to why he should watch it when I care less if he watches it or not; Hunt links to his recollections (with plenty of ad homs) of the event and not to the video itself.
As for Josh “So why would any intelligent person care who won the debate between @art and Meyer?” Well, clearly a lot of unintelligent people do seen to care.
Very interesting bit on the “The Fact-Free “Science” of Matheson, Hunt and Moran” with all links to the science and replies. Although this article mostly home in on Matheson and Moran, Hunt joins the melee as well. http://www.stephencmeyer.org/news/2010/06/the_factfree_science_of_mathes.html
One post was flagged as inappropriate for incivility and was hidden.
The only communication from me has been to say this is a silly argument. And right now I am the only one who comminicates on behalf of “Peaceful Science”. So in what sense did Peaceful Science “go crazy”?
Politics drives a lot of people to absurd priorities. This is just another example of this. I do not care who won the debate. @art’s post confirmed that Meyer is much stronger rhetorically. He is arguing archane (and important) technical details that went over the heads of the audience entirely. It is hard to imagine these arguments “winning” a debate, whether or not they are correct or important.
You’ve linked to a video and he has linked to his take on the video. So what?
It is clear that your priorities are merely on scoring points…
I would agree with this entirely. The reason why is that this encounter was at Biola University (home turf for Meyers), and it was not a fairly organized debate, but a followup Q&A. This was designed to put the questioners at a disadvantage. Meyers also is making a populist appeal to a sympathetic audience. It is a performance in a public space designed to accomplish a purpose. @Art and Matheson are props in that public theatre. Of he got the best of them. It has nothing to do with evidence, and that for which the event was defined. They were the “heels”.
In the same way, Ken Ham go the best of Bill Nye, and Nathaniel Jeanson got the best of Dennis Venema. Ken Hovind, in his day, ran circles around most the people he debated too. This is one reason I write…
This is why most scientists will not publicly engage with YEC advocates. It is the same reason they usually do not engage with ID advocates. They are much better at populist appeals, sometimes entirely abandoning scientific coherence and evidence as they do so.
So seriously @theman8469, what is this about really? Fine, in an imbalanced exchange, Meyer got the better of @Art on rhetoric in a crowd already convinced of ID. The crowd had no ability or desire to follow his scientific point. Neither do you @theman8469. I’d like to see a fair exchange.
I will be the first to admit that I don’t know the score-keeping rules for things like this. But, focusing just on my interactions, Meyer gave away the store. Digital information? Not important or not relevant. Cells as machines? No, Meyer grants that this is not the case.
The fact that the crowd didn’t instantly renounce Christianity (or become Celtics fans) doesn’t really change the recorded fact that Meyer gave away the store. That’s gotta count for something, no?
Dr Hunt, do you think it is worthwhile to engage in debates with YEC and ID ideologues? You’re a real scientist doing real science and teaching. Why engage at all?
This comment is curious… what hat were you wearing in the debate? Were you a scientist or an apologist against Christianity?
If the latter… what authority do you speak with…Do you think science can really disprove God?
So now you are suggesting that it was a stage managed set-up that Hunt and Meyer fell into. I really expected better from you and quite sad to see this level of virtue signalling from someone who claims that he wishes to build bridges.
I’m seeing a high rate of ad hominem and insults from you. Please stop.
This is not virtue signalling. Do you think this was a balanced audience? Do you this was a fair exchange with equal time to all participants? Do think that Hunt is equally skilled at public debate as Meyer? Do you think this is how scientific debates are adjudicated?
My comment was tongue-in-cheek, as it were. The quip about Celtics fans should have been a giveaway. Maybe I should have said something about the crowd instantly becoming Royal Challengers fans.
@theman8469, if we all take a deep breath … and be assured that nobody dies in these chat rooms … we can drop the intensity level down a notch or two.
A post was split to a new topic: Hunt’s 2003 Critique of Axe
Enough with the hockey team references!
Ok thanks …Got it…
Some days, one can be thankful for this electronic venue in which ideas can be shared and discussed. Not because they are profitable, but rather, that some poor tree did not need to die in order for it to be printed instead.
Important, but highly technical points. Fundamentally important for the logic of Meyer’s case, but this exchange was not about logic. It was a performance with the crowds, and you had a scripted role, that you played to the tee.
It does count, but not rhetorically. What we need to do is get a transcript of the exchange so it can be quoted. However, the goal should have never been to convince them to renouncer Christianity. The goal should be to renounce bad arguments, false claims, and enter into the mystery of science.
You might actually have made progress towards this the next day…The Real Story of the Hunt and Meyer Exchange. If that public debate was the price of entry, you might have made a good trade.
@art I’m not precisely saying you lost. I’m rather saying we do not expect good scientists to win in contexts like this. Popularism is the enemy of good science, and public debates are pure populism.
For one reason, some sort of engagement/debate helps to prepare for important events. The Dover Trial was such a debacle for ID because a community of scientists had been debating anti-evolutionists for many years, and had pretty much packaged the rebuttals to ID arguments into forms that could be easily presented.
After reading this thread, I’m unable to conclude whether I should watch this video or not But I am interested to see Dr. Matheson!