#11978: Arcane — 12/27  at  03:03 PM
Alright Jeebus, so you're just a moron. There is nothing in that article unscientific. NOTHING. All it was doing was describing an expedition that was going to take place, and said absolutely nothing as to whether or not the ark actually existed. If anything, the article was skeptical.

You didn't even read the article, but you rejected it automatically because some of the content concerned a religious story. Is it worse than this article?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041224/sc_nm/environment_santa_dc_1

This is not "science." This is anti-religious bigotry.

#11979: Arcane — 12/27  at  03:04 PM
Jeebus,

Also, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what your degrees are in, eh? I doubt you're a scientist. You're just a bigot, like PZ.

#11980: Jan Theodore Galkowski — 12/27  at  03:11 PM
<blockquote>Yes, maybe we <i>are</i> fundies - about science!</blockquote>Yeah, I'd agree to that description of myself. Thanks, <b>Jeebus</b>.

I didn't want to complicate an otherwise delightfully categorical contest, but, what the heck, you may recall I am a theist, not an atheist. Worse, by some people's standards, I'm some kind of traitor because I abandoned the Christianity of my upbringing (12 years in Catholic schools no less) and chose Judaism, converting in 1980. Why did I do that?

Because I was brought up with Science (that's right, capital "S") in my world view from when I was very, very small, my dad being a chemistry professor, and academic halls and libraries among the most comfortable places in the world for me. And while both my parents were devout and religious, I had and still have many, many problems with Christian theology and teachings. In my gut, it just did not fit with my scientific soul. Judaism did. Ergo.

Why anything? Emotions. Just a religious type person who likes ritual. Can atheists be religious? Of course they can, in the most general sense of the term.

Do I believe there was a Moses and a Jacob or an Abraham or that the Torah was hand-written by God? Of course I don't. Does it matter to my belief in a God? No. Do I see problems with monotheism. Yes, very much so. If religions were judged by utility, polytheism is, in my opinion, much better. Perhaps Buddhism is good, but Buddhists have (as well as Jews once or twice, BTW ) used their religion as a reason for killing. (That was in Sri Lanka, some time ago, I can give a reference.) So, I'm an ethical Jew, and very much in favor of defending the downtrod, the minority, "the orphan and the widow", in the words of a prophet.

But science--paraphrasing the Dalai Lama, BTW--must always trump theology and tradition, because it is the only way of knowing we have.

#11981: — 12/27  at  03:16 PM
Jeebus: "This ark crap is blatantly unscientific"

Now, how could one possibly know a thing like that? Even if some people investigating the Noah story have gone about it in a way that might be criticized as "unscientific", how can the story itself be pronounced "unscientific" in the archaeological context? And if the story cannot be pronounced "unscientific", then how can an investigation of it be peremptorily pronounced "unscientific" in any absolute sense?

It sounds to me as though somebody's mind is already made up about what may be true, and what is definitely false, in the field of archaeology. And this, of course, is the real meaning of "unscientific", not only in archaeology but elsewhere in the sciences.

In any case, the central issue here is pz's urgent need to apologize for a dastardly accusation ("lying to children") that he cannot in any wise substantiate.

#11983: — 12/27  at  03:26 PM
I did, in fact, read the article Arcane, and not for the first time. You, however, seem to have trouble reading my comments with any basic level of comprehension. Either that or you are absolutely determined to argue against positions which have been neither stated nor implied. I said that the problem I believe PZ has with the article is that it treats religion as if it is the same as science. That is (as it seems you need clarification on this point) it discusses what is really a faith based interpretation of rather minimal visual data as if that interpretation might actually have scientific validity. This is not about whether or not it is true. Hell perhaps, despite all likelihood, what we are seeing in that image is Noah's ark. Perhaps, on the other hand, it is some sort of detritus left behind by Thor, the Norse God of Thunder. There are many sorts of theories I can put forth about what that image might be, presuming that it is not a hoax or a glitch to begin with, all of which have some minimal possibility of being true. But very few of those theories are really scientific theories. Saying that is not the same as talking about "100% fact" which is yet another formulation that you managed to invent and inject into this debate with no reasonable reference to anything anyone has said.

To Neurode (if you are still reading this thread)in a similar vein. I never made any argument that National Geographic would be wrong to acknowledge the use of religious texts for reference. In fact, I wouldn't make that argument even if I could prove that such texts are "purely religious fable[s] with no basis whatsoever in fact " - a task in which I exactly zero interest. What I have argued is that I think the problem PZ has with the article is that it does a poor job of distinguishing between speculation driven by a religious belief system and the scentific model of study. Now perhaps you disagree with that assessment of the article or perhaps you disagree with my assessment of the scientific model. Fair enough. But your continued insistence that this is suggestive of religious bigotry and that PZ has made some sort of indefensible statement remains unfounded.

#11984: Arcane — 12/27  at  03:28 PM
Neurode,
Anything mentioned in any kind of mythology or theology is false according to these people.

The Oracle at Delphi never existed, nor did Troy, nor did anything else ever mentioned in religious texts. If it's religious in nature, then it's automatically false.

I'm done here. I don't even remember why I came back to here in the first place.

#11985: — 12/27  at  03:34 PM
Jan Theodore Galkowski: "I didn’t want to complicate an otherwise delightfully categorical contest, but, what the heck, you may recall I am a theist, not an atheist. Worse, by some people’s standards, I’m some kind of traitor because I abandoned the Christianity of my upbringing (12 years in Catholic schools no less) and chose Judaism, converting in 1980. Why did I do that?"

Why indeed? Your atheism-endorsing behavior presents us with contradictory data. One minute, you announce that you believe in God and go to Temple; the next minute, you become an avid booster for a rabid self-professed atheist. It just doesn't wash.

On a strongly related note, you were asked not to waffle. It's easy enough to give a yes or no answer to a question like "Is National Geographic lying to children?". For that reason, I interpreted your gleeful, manic response, "You betcha!", as a simple "yes". That is, I chose to disregard the accompanying wafflefest.

I have a strong hunch that you habitually flipflop to the point of prevarication - at least, I've known others who share your general style of self-expression, and that's what they do - and have no interest whatsoever in wasting time as you repeatedly attempt to wriggle out of the dialectical tight spots you frenetically create for yourself.

If you now wish to change your answer to "no", then by all means, feel free to eliminate or get off the throne, to relieve yourself or get off the pot, to straighten up and take a meaningful stand. Because until then, nothing you say adds up right.

#11986: Jan Theodore Galkowski — 12/27  at  03:47 PM

Why indeed? Your atheism-endorsing behavior presents us with contradictory data. One minute, you announce that you believe in God and go to Temple; the next minute, you become an avid booster for a rabid self-professed atheist. It just doesn’t wash.

Oh, that's not hard to explain at all. They have truth on their side. I always have to choose that side. Or, to quote Waldenstrom, If even the devil states that 2x2 = 4, I am going to believe him.

On a strongly related note, you were asked not to waffle. It’s easy enough to give a yes or no answer to a question like “Is National Geographic lying to children?”. For that reason, I interpreted your gleeful, manic response, “You betcha!”, as a simple “yes”. That is, I chose to disregard the accompanying wafflefest.

Well, it was a "yes" answer to your direct question. You didn't tell me to limit my answer to but that. And if you had, I would have ignored you.

<style of self-expression, and that’s what they do - and have no interest whatsoever in wasting time as you repeatedly attempt to wriggle out of the dialectical tight spots you frenetically create for yourself.</blockquote>

Yes, meeting such people must be truly painful for you, and I'm sorry for that. After all, direct, simple, and dichotomous expressions tax the mind less.

If you now wish to change your answer to “no”, then by all means, feel free to eliminate or get off the throne, to relieve yourself or get off the pot, to straighten up and take a meaningful stand. Because until then, nothing you say adds up right.

Because I'm such an odd duck in this company, with strange stripes and affiliations, you can expect to continue to be frustrated with me. I don't fit into anyone's neat category. Indeed, the owner of the taxonomy is the one with the weakness.

#11993: — 12/27  at  05:29 PM
What a quizzical character is Jan Theodore Galkowski, who says of the atheists:

"They have truth on their side."

Yet he claims to be a theist. Hmmm! Having given utterance to the paradox, he then gussies it up in a pretty bow ribbon by pronouncing:

"Indeed, the owner of the taxonomy is the one with the weakness."

How curious! For when the taxonomy comes down to "true OR false", this bit of wisdom makes a "weakness" out of propositional logic!

Evidently, Jan Theodore Galkowski is not one to be pinned down by logic.

(Now, why doesn't that surprise me?)

#11995: Jan Theodore Galkowski — 12/27  at  06:01 PM

What a quizzical character is Jan Theodore Galkowski, who says of the atheists:

“They have truth on their side.”

Yet he claims to be a theist. Hmmm!

Ah, at last, I feel we see the essence of Neurode. For belief in God is an opinion, not a fact. Opinions are assumptions, and thus are unarguable. And that, m'dear Neurode, is precisely why an expedition to seek Noah's Ark anywhere is such a ridiculous chase of the goose.

#11996: Jan Theodore Galkowski — 12/27  at  06:04 PM

How curious! For when the taxonomy comes down to “true OR false”, this bit of wisdom makes a “weakness” out of propositional logic!

And it demonstrates the weakness of its proponent. Because there are many statements which can be neither be proven truth nor false, some because of "insufficient information", some because of having only statistical knowledge, some because of the very fabric of physical reality, and some because of the nature of logic itself.

#11998: — 12/27  at  06:13 PM
You know, despite everything, I'm really beginning to warm to Neurode.

There's something warmly dependable about his style:

that its so woolly...

Neurode wrote:
You really don’t understand much of anything at all, do you, tigerbear?

...with endlessly predictable spiky comment thrown in.

Neurode wrote:
I’m the author of the paragraph you’ve been desperately trying to interpret, and I’ve already corrected you twice regarding the intended meaning. So that’s it.

I'd have to disagree with the use of the word "corrected", here.

From what has followed it seems "offered post-hoc rationalisations of an overly woolly paragraph" is much closer to the mark.

Neurode could accept their lack of clarity and move on but seems to prefer any opportunity for insult over intelligent response.

(It is also intellectually lazy, and anyone can do it:
Neurode mistakes verbosity for cogent argument
- see how easy it is?).

If Neurode has decided to closely associate themselves with Glueck's position after all, then it is in reference to a post that made use of (what s/he would themselves seem to describe as) excessive argument from authority. This it did by quote-mining several academics who had nice things to say about the historical accuracy of the Old Testament.

Pyrrhic victory, there.

Neurode wrote:
(By the way, no author is required by any law of English usage to compress all relevant semantic information into each and every sentence he utters. If you become confused about what a given sentence means, you may need to go outside the sentence itself to dispel your confusion. The technical linguistic term for this is “context dependency”. My contributions here have contained all the interpretative information required for you or anyone else to make sense of what I’ve written.)

Yes, Neurode, I understand this, but unlike you I usually assume enough intelligence on the part of my opponents that I don't make these things explicit.

My first two paragraphs of post #98 make use of context dependency.

Do you see?

Now have a biscuit.

Neurode wrote:
If this too leaves you confused, then I’m afraid I have nothing left for you but “Godspeed!” on your long and tangled route to exegetical wisdom.

Oh, one more question for the road then.

Go on.

Clearly this time.

What exactly is it that you've decided to object to?

If (arguments from authority, endless verbosity and your use of strawmen aside) all it boils down to is the tone of PZ's argument, I'd point out to you that since you have shown yourself to be individual who argues with acid rather than analysis, you aren't in a very strong position to criticise an argument's tone.