Much of our life is spent making judgments. And, unavoidably, we often make those judgments with very little evidence. Your “never” seems too strong.
2 Likes
I now have a mental picture of Eddie in a bookshop, being completely unable to decide whether the books they have for sale are worth reading, being chastised by the staff for trying to read one before buying it, and eventually staggering off under the weight of every book they had for sale because he had no way of choosing any one above the rest.
3 Likes
Remember, reviews are just hearsay!
2 Likes
Would you need to read a book on the scientific evidence for a flat earth to know before hand it’s wrong?
2 Likes
This reply has the saving grace of showing, unlike the rest of your posts (and of those of several others here) a sense of humor. I give you points for that.
At least it can be said that the picture of me in a bookshop is imaginable. It’s hard for me to imagine several of the people here ever stepping inside of a bookshop, since they apparently never read books (but only peer-reviewed articles), and since they apparently believe that scientists don’t write books (or that if they do, those books aren’t worth reading).
Sorry, but that seems to be a misrepresentation of @Eddie’s position, at least as expressed here in this discussion.
Eddie’s position is as follows: Suppose you read something a Flat Earther has written for publication as a scholarly article, and you are able to find serious flaws in the article that fatally undermine his argument. You are aware of other books this Flat Earther has written, though not intended for a scholarly audience, and while you are aware of the main gist of these books, you have not read them in their entirely.
You ask people who have read these books, and who are supporters of Flat Earth Theory, if the shortcomings you identified in the article are addressed in these books. The supporters, for reasons known only to themselves, are unable or unwilling to answer your question.
You go on to conclude that the article you have read does not adequately support its conclusions and, based on the scholarly evidence you have read, the author has failed to make a persuasive case for a Flat Earth.
According to Eddie, you would be not be following acceptable scholarly if you did this. I disagree.
2 Likes
No, because I already know what “the earth is flat” means, and I have independent means of verifying that the statement is false. But people here are saying that Denton is a creationist, Denton is wrong, etc., without first ascertaining what Denton has written by reading it for themselves. Or, in the case of Faizal Ali, pretending to understand Denton on the basis of one article, when Denton’s more recent presentation, one expanded in length, detail, and conceptual refinement, is available. It is normal scholarly practice to refrain from saying that someone has been refuted until one has refuted the most recent formulation of their views. But this is a blog site largely frequented by partisans, so I guess it’s absurd of me to expect anything like traditional academic detachment and restraint. Even if they are or have been university professors themselves and ought to know the proper academic principles.
Oh, and by the way, Rich, regarding our discussion on one of the other threads, drop me a reply when you get around to reading the comments of Torley and Chaberek on the specific passages of Thomas Aquinas regarding direct creation which Austriaco, Carroll, Tkacz, Beckwith and Feser all avoid talking about. But it would be best for you to do that under the other discussion, not here.
If I have misunderstood any of Denton’s ideas, I welcome corrections. The question of whether he should be defined as a creationist is a separate issue from that, of course.
I remain open to the possibility that Denton has addressed the serious flaws in his argument that have been identified. I hasten to add that I am far from the first to identify these problems, and that many of those raising the same questions are experts in the relevant scientific fields.
However, until I actually see evidence that he has addressed these problems, or even so much as demonstrated the vaguest awareness of them, I am happy to stand by my conclusion: Denton’s structuralist argument is based on a false understanding of modern evolutionary theory as purely functionalist, and fails to address the non-functionalist, non-structuralist explanations for the phenomena he attempts to explain.
Anyway, this is all a sideshow. If I’m right, great, and if I’m wrong, also fine.
Can we simply have an answer to the question of whether Denton has addressed the problems I have raised here? Is there really no one familiar enough with his writing to answer without us having to go read thru his books?
1 Like
Yes, it’s a separate issue, but note that even in the article which you say you have read, Denton clearly comes out as an evolutionist. He presumes that evolution really happened, and differs with some people only over how it happened. So even if your critique of Denton’s account of evolutionary causality should prove to be correct, you still need to retract your claim that he is a creationist – or admit that you are using a definition of “creationist” that is not in line with the common usage for the past 100 years, and formally state your own definition so that everyone can see it.
How can he do that, when “ID Creationist theory” does not exist? ID theory exists, and Creationist theory exists, but no one known to me has articulated an “ID Creationist theory”.
So what am I to conclude from your continued refusal to address the main point of this thread, Eddie?
Are you actually not as familiar with Denton’s work as you claim to be?
Is it the case that Denton’s argument is, in fact, fatally undermined by the issues I have raised here, and you refuse to acknowledge this?
Do you not sufficiently understand the issues I am raising here to even determine whether or not Denton addresses them?
Or some other possibility I have failed to consider?
1 Like
Done.
1 Like
You’re asking me to invest an hour or more of my time to reread 100 or more pages of Denton that I haven’t looked at in a while, to make sure that what I say is completely accurate. You’re asking me to be an unpaid research assistant for you. And even if I were willing to do that for you, you never trust my interpretations of anything, and would probably argue that my reading of his thought was all wrong.
If you are really concerned to find out whether he expands upon or alters his account in his later work, you should read it for yourself; that is the only way you can see with your own eyes.
One point that may be useful is this: I’m sure Denton is aware that not all of modern evolutionary theory (as opposed to classic neo-Darwinism) is focused on function or adaptation. I think he would still say that some of the non-functionalist explanations are inadequate. You might disagree with him on that. That’s fine.
I missed it, please restate. I’m looking for a statement like this:
“By ‘evolution’, I mean …”
I don’t see why you cannot give a one-sentence definition of “evolution.” At most, you should need two or three brief sentences. I’m not asking for a treatise on evolutionary mechanisms, just your definition of “evolution.”
To give you some oversimplified examples which illustrate the form I’m looking for:
“By ‘gravity’, I mean a force of attraction existing between any two bodies in the universe, directly proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them.”
“By ‘continental drift’, I refer to the sliding of continental land masses over the surface of the earth’s mantle, which alters the distance between continents over time.”
Now try something like that for “evolution”, and maybe we could actually begin communicating.
Not on topic for this discussion.
You can find my definition of creationism here, at the end of the OP, though I know you have already read it.
Your continued resorting to lame excuses to avoid discussing the flaws identified in Denton’s claim is duly noted. If you do not know whether he addresses these issues, you are in no position to say his claims are of any scientific value whatsoever.
You have reproduced your objections to my definition of “creationism,” when I asked for your definition of “evolution.”
I gave you a template for producing a clear definition, but you avoid doing so. Should I conclude that you fear to do so?
If not, then give us your short definition of “evolution.”
Give us your context for the usage. Words can have more than one definition depending on the context. That concept still seems to elude you for some reason.
2 Likes
Faizal is at liberty to give all necessary context for his definition of evolution. He can give multiple definitions, and state when the use of each is appropriate. I place no restriction on his answer. I just want something that he has committed himself to, so he can’t back out later when it comes to apply the definition(s).
He’s used the word in many different contexts on this site. If you won’t point to any specific passage then you obviously aren’t interested in getting a correct answer. Just more rhetorical game playing.
4 Likes
What’s your verdict on Behe’s veracity when it comes to the evolution of the immune system?
Didn’t your hero Behe, under oath, admit to rendering a verdict on work that he hadn’t read?
1 Like