On "Non-Supernatural Intelligent Design": Viable Epistemology/Probative Science Tool?

What happened to,

"Dream on, John MacNeil."

that you posted last evening, Mr.G.?

The fact of the matter is, Mr.G., that you are claiming to be an authority. Not only are you claiming to be an authority, but you are claiming to be an authority in many fields. You routinely dismiss scientific evidence that is accumulated by experts, without showing cause, and expect everyone to believe you over them. You constantly question other people's credentials. That means that you regard yourself as the arbiter of last resort, which is assuming authority.

No one really cares if you use your real name or some monicker, but you have to realize that by choosing to use a label that doesn't represent you legally, your view will always be regarded somewhat less than the view of someone who portrays his or herself for who they really are. Also, claiming to be a teacher is attempting to put yourself in the favorable guise of an authority figure, but when you do not display teacheresque qualities, that ego-stroking claim can be disregarded as not pertaining to the subject. You have made similar authority-figure claims on behalf of JamesR, saying that he is studying for a Phd in physics, yet when you read JamesR's writings on physics, such as this line,

"The Earth's surface is not an inertial frame because it accelerates upward."--JamesR,

it is obvious that JamesR doesn't understand physics, even though he, coincidentally, just yesterday claimed he is a teacher of physics. The fact that you guys make such claims on the internet while displaying minimal knowledge of the subject matter is reason enough for us to ask you to qualify your rejection of evidence. It is also reason enough for us to question your identity if you question the credentials of certified professionals. However, if you wish to keep your identity secret, then you must realize that there are credibility restrictions that go with that posture.
 
John MacNeil:

If that IS your real name... :D

No one really cares if you use your real name or some monicker, but you have to realize that by choosing to use a label that doesn't represent you legally, your view will always be regarded somewhat less than the view of someone who portrays his or herself for who they really are.

You may choose to use whatever label/moniker/userid/name/handle you wish. It doesn't matter. I will never consider your view any less credible then I do now.
 
Yes, Q, I use my real name. And we've already witnessed your propensity to call physicists and astronomers "crackpots" whenever you disagree with their learned view. And I wasn't implying you shouldn't use a monicker, just that more credibility is associated with a full legal name and that it would be improper to ask for certain clarifications of others when not supplying any clarification for yourself.
 
"....you are claiming to be an authority in many fields."

Precisely how have I argued that I possess granted authority that is the equivalent of compelling scientific evidence?

"You routinely dismiss scientific evidence that is accumulated by experts,...."

And you never do, is that right? Besides, my experts can beat the crap out of your experts.

"....and expect everyone to believe you over them...."

That would be a rather pointless expectation, don't you think? How can an anonymous voice on the internet expect to compel anyone to believe something without their willing consent? Though not wanting to be told what they should think, most people still are generally appreciative of engaging discourse that stimultes, and somethimes modifies, their own free thinking. And that's a big part of why arguments from authority are destined to fail.

"You constantly question other people's credentials."

Only those people whom I feel compelled to question for the probative value. Not everyone's credentials are necessarily relevent to a science-related discussion/debate.

"....you regard yourself as the arbiter of last resort, which is assuming authority."

Only for myself, as a free thinker. I decide whom and what is most relevent to me. What others decide is not up to me, though I may indirectly play a part in their decision-making. That is not command-type authority to which you choose to allude.

"....you have to realize that by choosing to use a label that doesn't represent you legally,...."

Baloney. Since when did you offer up your driver license, passport, birth certificate, retinal scan and whatever that conclusively proves to us that you are someone actually named John MacNeil? The fact that no one can be certain you aren't just calling yourself John MacNeil makes your next quoted point rather pointless:

>>>>>>> "to use a label that doesn't represent you legally, your view will always be regarded somewhat less than the view of someone who portrays his or herself for who they really are." :rolleyes:

It's not about what's in a name, it's about what's in a brain.

"....claiming to be a teacher is attempting to put yourself in the favorable guise of an authority figure...."

How many students think favorably of their teachers? It's a pretty problematic authority high to hope for. Besides, claiming to be a teacher doesn't require anyone to believe the claim, which is a point differing only in form that I've made many times before during our protracted conversation herein: just because you make a claim does not obligate anyone to accept it as being true or certain.

"....it is obvious that JamesR doesn't understand physics..."

What is even more obvious is that James R. understands physics far, far better than do you. You're claim can only be correct if you were to phrase it as James R. doesn't understand your personal interpretations of modern physics. You're free to have them, of course--as free as are we to reject them on their merits.

"....you guys make such claims on the internet while displaying minimal knowledge of the subject matter...."

Ah. There's that "arbitor of last resort" "ego-stroking" you were talking about.

"It is also reason enough for us to question your identity if you question the credentials of certified professionals.

So, I'd better not question authority if I know what's good for me, eh? :rolleyes: Had a pretty tough childhood, did you? We should only question the credentials of our "certified professionals" but not yours?

"....if you wish to keep your identity secret, then you must realize that there are credibility restrictions that go with that posture.

You're quite free to choose any criteria for restricting my "credibility". Why not add to your list of credibility restrictions that I'm not even male? Oh, wait. You already incorporate that into your credibilty restrictions. And that's just another reason why you're John MacNeil and I'm not.
 
John,

You quoted a statement I made in the context of general relativity. The fact that you claim it is wrong shows that you know about as much about that subject as you do about the big bang theory.

I do not need to question your credentials. Your posts speak eloquently for themselves.
 
James, you may have read some books and assimilated disparate parts of them, but you definately do not have a conceptual understanding of physics. In the Physics & Math section you have displayed that lack of understanding repeatedly in Frencheneesz's thread. On numerous occasion Frencheneesz asked you for a clarification of what you said and your reply was that you couldn't supply an understandable answer in the space of a whole thread, and that you would have to write a book to explain it (as if!), and that Frencheneesz should read a bunch of book to get the answer to the single question. The only reason that you wouldn't be able to supply a readily understandable, and concise, explanation of what you said, is if you didn't know what you were talking about. Which clearly is the case, as is indicated by all your posts in Frencheneesz's physics thread.

Mr.G., as usual, your childish post is all obfuscation. You are the one who hosted this thread. That obligates you to at least address the evidence that you called for. If you dismiss all evidence presented, without giving valid renunciations, then that is assuming authority over the work of professionals.

The only way that you can have credibility is if you address the evidence that was presented, in the order that it was presented.
 
John challenges:

The only reason that you wouldn't be able to supply a readily understandable, and concise, explanation of what you said, is if you didn't know what you were talking about.

If you believe JamesR doesn't know what he's talking about, that would lead me to conclude you know the answers. Why then, don't you join in the thread and dispute, point for point, JamesR alleged errors. You claim to have read Einstein's theories, so there should be no reason why you can't also explain to Frenchy, General Relativity.

*Q waits patiently for John's next lame excuse*
 
Q, if you would just read this thread from the beginning, you will notice I have been trying from the first page to get you guys to engage in an actual discussion, but that, apparently, is about as easy as rounding up the mice plague in Australia with a coffee can.
 
John

Q, if you would just read this thread from the beginning, you will notice I have been trying from the first page to get you guys to engage in an actual discussion

I've read every word of this thread and would gladly engage in discussion. But first, please visit the following thread and point out JamesR errors and also explain to Frencheneez, relativity. Thanks in advance.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=10436
 
"Mr.G.,....your childish...."

Ah. One of your promised 'credibility restrictions'. Might I suggest for your future use: 'infantile', adolescent', 'pre-pubescent', 'juvenile', 'immature' and 'puerile'. :)

"....at least address the evidence...."

Okay: "Hello, Mister Alien. Nice to meet you. How's Epsilon Eridani this time of year?"

"....without giving valid renunciations,...."

That presumes valid enunciations have been offered for renuncing.

"....that is assuming authority over the work of professionals."

Baloney. You're saying that proffessional wrestling can't be dismissed by anyone as being staged theater until they themselves become proffessional wrestlers.

"The only way that you can have credibility is if you address the evidence that was presented, in the order that it was presented."

You mean, again?
 
John,

There's no need for me to reply to your comments, since what I would say has already been said.

You are hereby invited to critique my answers in the other thread. I await your erudite comments with baited breath.
 
John

The arena awaits your presence... we have a nice table for one ringside....are you perhaps taking a crash course in Relativity ?
 
The fact of the matter is, Mr.G., that you are claiming to be an authority. Not only are you claiming to be an authority, but you are claiming to be an authority in many fields. You routinely dismiss scientific evidence that is accumulated by experts, without showing cause, and expect everyone to believe you over them. You constantly question other people's credentials. That means that you regard yourself as the arbiter of last resort, which is assuming authority.
Click to expand...

A few weeks ago back when I was wasting time with this thread Mr. McNeil called my credentials into question, to wit:

Your view of the early universe is confusing and it is obvious that astrophysics is not your specialty.
Click to expand...

I was not even trying to argue the validity of the Big Bang ("Ultimate Creation Theory"-these are derisive quotation marks of only the finest imported derision) but trying to state what I thought was meant by the theory and that your statement that all matter springing from infinetesimal geometry might as well been pure creationism was logically in error, you chose instead for an ad hominem comment rather than continue the argument. In a purely logical argument people don't call other people's credentials into question, but only using the strength or validity of the argument itself. It doesn't surprise me that this thread has devolved into a mudfight over credentials, with John MacNeil leading the fray.

About the time I started reading your crap about photons pushing each other out of the way was when I realized any discussion of physics with you was wasted time. Kind of like this and any further post here, or the endless exercise of pointing out your fallacies.

Le Coq
 
Obvious and Obviouser

I can't help it... I just got ta

Mr. McNeil's derision thus:

"The Earth's surface is not an inertial frame because it accelerates upward."--JamesR
(McNeil: )
it is obvious that JamesR doesn't understand physics, even though he, coincidentally, just yesterday claimed he is a teacher of physics.
Click to expand...

John, if you understood Einstein as well as you aggrandize him, then you would understand the principle of equivalence that he described for his general theory of relativity, in which he stated that acceleration due to gravity or acceleration due to a reference frame itself accelerating are indistinguishable. The earth accelerates upwards toward a body, just as you accelerate towards the earth (in line with Newton's 3rd Law).

Le Coq, Esq.
Non-PhD-havin' mofo
 
You children have expressed no knowledge of any subject that is under discussion in this thread. If you think that your immature critique passes for discussion, then the only ones you are fooling is yourselves.
 
John

I take it then, you won't be visiting that other thread and challenging JamesR's so-called errors on relativity? I suspected as much.

You've yet to formulate a coherent statement which holds an iota of reason or rationale. Your extraordinary claims are equaled only by your overwhelmingly inadequate understanding of the very basics of which you dispute. If you feel comments towards you are childish and immature, it is only because that is the magnitude of intellect you've shown to tender. Surely you must know if you enter the realm of a science forum only to make outlandish claims without providing any reasonable evidence, you're bound to meet severe criticism. I cannot believe you've visited other science forums and were met with open-armed agreement all the while spewing forth the same nonsense you've entertained here.

Am I sounding too harsh ?

If you're serious about what you believe, my comments should only serve to further entrench your views, as they would any crackpot, kook or loon. If it is a game you play, rest assured I am also having a good chuckle. ;)
 
Le Coq:

The thread has predictably evolved as others of a philosophic nature. Where uncontestable evidence does not exist to speak for itself, people argue over translations and interpretations of facsimile evidence. Inevitably, such conversations touch upon who is better at translating and interpretation because the facsimile evidence itself isn't authoritative.

And adding to your own comments about credentials and credibilities as components of the discussion: ted_roe began his postings here by introducing himself as "Executive Director" and stating that his "Organization" and its familiars advocate interchanging the acronyms UFO and UAP because to use UFO diminishes their "credibility". He also stated that his partner, "Dr." Haines, is an ex-"NASA" employee. By interjecting into the conversation the notion that credentials and credibility have utilitarian roles in conversational treatment of the subjects at hand, ted_roe also opened the door to our attempts to verify his 'credentials', his organization's credibility, and the extent of that utility. Once we posed our initial questions, ted_roe disappeared. Since then, John MacNeil has admonsished us for having brought credentials and credibility into the discussion. Frankly, I don't think issues of credentials and credibility should be forbidden topics or debate tools. I don't mind John MacNeil questioning me about mine. It hasn't driven me out of the thread like he might have believed was the case with ted_roe.

So, I ask myself why I think ted_roe felt compelled to leave the conversation when he did, just as we brought our skepticisms to bear. I guess we made him uncomfortable, not like all the friendly folks at all those UFO conferences he and his partner attend.

Or maybe it's just that we have bad breath.

;)
 
John MacNeil:
You children...immature...fooling...yourselves.
Click to expand...
You have an obvious disdain for children. I hope you don't live near an elementary school.
 
As usual, Mr.G., you pretend to miss the point. You started this thread by compiling a list of another person's quotes with the intention of isolating and decimating that person with your rapier wit and superior belief system. When I posted in this thread and questioned your belief system as well as the other belief system, you were obviously at a loss, at first, on how to categorize me. You eventually revealed your belief that I was another creationist using a different tact to attack your own position. That, of course, was not the case. I know, and now everybody else who reads this thread knows, that my position is that your Ultimate Creation Theory is nothing more than the next generation creation belief system. Since I believe in the physics that describes the universe, as exemplified by the Unified Field Theory, all of the evidence I presented for discussion is based on physical evidence. All of which, as everyone observed, you religiously refrained from discussing, as if to infer that it was not worthy of discussion by it's very nature of being contrary to your religion based belief system.

As for your credentials, which you talk about but fail to supply, it is immaterial to me if you hide behind a monicker. You religionists can pretend to believe in science all you want, but if you can't defend your creationist view in the course of the discussion, or scientifically refute the evidence I have presented in the course of the discussion, or partake in the discussion in any manner other than the obfuscation and criticism that you have displayed throughout, then your active participation in the discussion is immature, regardless of how you view your performance.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top