Tell all this, to John Mercer, who countless times, when the word “argument” has been used in this way, has sharply retorted with comments like; “I’m not interested in arguments; I’m interested in evidence” or “Science isn’t about arguments; it’s about data.”
Before you can get to an argument in science you have to have evidence and data.
In science arguments are supported with evidence and data. Not with empty rhetorical bluster which seems to be ID-Creationism’s exclusive output.
Yes, that is quite obvious, and no one here ever said or implied otherwise, but that doesn’t stop Mercer from jeering when people use terms like “scientific argument” or “scientific debate”. He has many times (albeit not so much here as elsewhere) indicated not merely that evidence and data are needed for good science (which everybody grants), but that argument or debates aren’t central to scientific activity. And that contradicts what you have just said. You have said that scientists are “arguers by profession” – something very different from his characterization of scientific activity. He has always represented scientific activity as primarily research, based on a hypothesis, to uncover data. He has never stressed the “argument” aspect of science as you do.
Less complaining, more substance, please.
You mean, the way Steve Meyer showed that virtual bankruptcy of current origin-of-life research by reference to the paucity of evidence it had produced?
You mean Steve Meyer’s atrociously bad book Darwin’s Doubt which was beaten into a fine pink mist and universally rejected by real paleontologists?
No. If you read what I wrote, you would see that it was about the origin of life, which was not the topic of Darwin’s Doubt. Try reading Signature in the Cell.
Oh, and by the way, there are many excellent rebuttals to criticisms of Darwin’s Doubt in the volume entitled Debating Darwin’s Doubt.
My point is that I get tired of all the pompous posturing of scientists on these websites, each claiming to be the authority on what “science” or “good science” is, when often they differ in their accounts. But they never criticize each other when such differences arise; they remain silent about them, and concentrate, by tacit agreement, on attacking ID and creationist people.
Do you think calling people “pompous” is a good way to pursue a good conversation?
Oh, you mean Meyer’s equally wretched ignorance based layman’s book which was also beaten into a fine pink mist and universally rejected by real biologists and geneticists. Got it.
What about all the pompous posturing from non-scientists like yourself bloviating on subjects of which you are almost totally ignorant? You don’t seem to tire of that.
This is also a poor way to pursue a good conversation.
I think it would be helpful to focus on the topic and argue over other specific scientific issues in other threads.
I’m not the one who brought up Meyer’s books as examples of good science.
Fair request – replace “pompous posturing” with “over-assertiveness”. Will that do?
And while you are in the business of correcting ID sympathizers when they come on a bit too strong, would you take a moment to speak to some of the atheists here, like Tim Horton, who are chronically personally aggressive? Your protest of bad manners would have more credibility in my eyes if you dished out the advice about dialogical manners equally to all parties. I look forward to your fair-minded intervention the next time I’m violently bashed.
[Updated to take into account new information.]
I see that our last posts crossed, and that while I was typing you actually did say something to Tim Horton. I thank you. Your intervention comes somewhat late, as he has been talking to people that way here for months, but better late than never, I suppose.
Constantly whining about being mistreated instead of dealing with the science. It’s the Creationist way.
Never miss a chance to be hypocritical, do you?
Ah, yet another example of how Tim Horton has mastered the art of “Good Conversation.”
Pot calling kettle black? @eddie, how can you put into practice the advice in the OP, right in this moment?
So you find it more important to challenge me when I respond to a charge of being hypocritical, than to respond to the scores of times that Tim Horton has written to me in an abusive tone?
Amazing. We’ve finally found a man in Eddie who is never wrong, never a passive-aggressive instigator, and whose gas doesn’t stink.