The Psychological Reasons Maybe

[gary_s]

The problem I see mitch, is that perhaps you are reading into things that are not there but inserted there

Wrong. I respond in the same form as the post I am responding to. It is right there in front of everyone to see.

OK, I would like some other members to comment on this. Here are the posts in question:

Mitch: Sure, that part of evolutionary theory is really important to you, just as transubstantiation is really important to some Christians.

gary_s wrote: I just want to make it perfectly clear how much of a bullshit statement this is. I have no emotional attachment to scientific theories. They are not mine, nor have I contributed to them, but I can read and understand them, and I can discuss them with intelligence and confidence and I will debate the aspects of them on the facts. In this case, neither Mitch nor Rian have made any legitimate arguments that challenge the facts of the theory, or my commentary about it. What Mitch is doing is suggesting I have some sort of inappropriate attachment to it. When something factual is stated, I'll be happy to acknowledge it.

Mitch: I just want to make it perfectly clear how all of gary's response to my post is such complete bullshit that I feel I am wasting my time reading his posts at all. He uses the word "evolution" for his own private heavily emotionally invested philosophy rather than any kind of scientific theory and I just give up on any hope of having a rational discussion of the topic with him.

So, please, someone tell me that my statement was a direct insult to Mitch. Did I say anything about his comments wasting my time or all of them being bullshit? No. I said that particular statement was bullshit because it was not an accurate statement about my motivations. I went on to say that he had not made any relevant arguments to change my mind and I would be happy to address one if he made it. Did that really warrant his ugly response?

If anyone ever makes a statement about why he says something, he pounces on them immediately. What a hypocrite.

Wrong again, I have no problem with my parents or any of the atheists I grew up with. I had no reason to think badly of any atheists until I saw the way that atheists behaved on internet forums.

hypocrite

Yes it is apparent that many atheists don't see anything wrong with what they are doing when they are doing it to others, but only when others do the same thing to them.

hypocrite

Show me where I have supposedly done this and I will explain it for you.

Liar! He's called me a bigot numerous times in the past and has never once taken it back. Fucking hypocrite. I swear everyone here should put him on ignore.

[gary_s]

Mitch has said that he was or is an instructor in physics. Boy, do I feel sorry for those poor bastards.

[gary_s]

Now that Mitch has finally lost interest in this thread. Can someone comment on the topic of discussion before Mitch took it off the rails? To refresh, the topic was the part of evolutionary theory that Rian questions, which I believe is basically common descent or macroevolution.

[mitchellmckain]

I feel like Gary is postulating that if you are going to deny one of the prevalent facts any theory purports then you no longer believe in said theory, you believe in a different - yet similar - theory. Your answer here kind of agrees with that. You don't say that you believe in the theory of relativity if you don't buy the idea that the space-time is curved; you say that you believe in the special theory of relativity.

NO, it does not and that was only a quick and obvious answer to his example. Even if he had made it clear that you he was talking about the General theory of Relativity, I still don't think the example is really valid. Now unlike evolution, the General theory of Relativity is summed up in Einsteins field equation and one of the term in one of the most common ways of writing it includes tensors that are given the name curvature tensor and it is indeed said to represent the curvature of space time. But it is entirely possible that one may keep the equation and yet deny that the tensor represents a curvature of space time.

The who point is that none of science is any more sacred than the teachings of religion. We ARE free to disagree with any part of it that we don't believe is an accurate representation of the way things are. Of course science does include a means of settling disputes and coming to a consensus that relgion does not have. And by such means the consensus is that common decent is certainly correct. But that does change the fact that I dont think that gary's approach in criticizing Rian is a valid one in this case.

I don't think Gary is saying you must either accept all of evolution or accept none of it, just that you should call what you believe by a different name if you deny one of it's core principles.

And I think that amounts to turning this into some kind of gnostic legalist religion, saying that you cannot be a member of the in club if you don't agree with a certain set of beliefs. A lot of religion may work that way but that just isn't the way that science works!!!

[Keep The Reason]

The who point is that none of science is any more sacred than the teachings of religion.

"Sacred" is a bullshit theistic word. Science isn't sacred. It's a disciplinary method towards accuracy. And by it's very nature requires not hushed reverence but active critique.

Religion, however, expects hushed reverence.

[Keep The Reason]

So, please, someone tell me that my statement was a direct insult to Mitch. Did I say anything about his comments wasting my time or all of them being bullshit? No. I said that particular statement was bullshit because it was not an accurate statement about my motivations. I went on to say that he had not made any relevant arguments to change my mind and I would be happy to address one if he made it. Did that really warrant his ugly response?

Since you asked for forum input on this, I'll give you mine.

You said:

I just want to make it perfectly clear how much of a bullshit statement this is. I have no emotional attachment to scientific theories. They are not mine, nor have I contributed to them, but I can read and understand them, and I can discuss them with intelligence and confidence and I will debate the aspects of them on the facts. In this case, neither Mitch nor Rian have made any legitimate arguments that challenge the facts of the theory, or my commentary about it. What Mitch is doing is suggesting I have some sort of inappropriate attachment to it. When something factual is stated, I'll be happy to acknowledge it.

Other than using the non-technical term "bullshit" (which some people might label a symptom of emotional reaction, though I personally am not one of them; I consider the word to be a legitimate, if colluquial, summation of a statement that is not accurate or grounded in any demonstrable or objective reality) I don't interpret your response above to mitch to be invested with much (or even any) emotion at all. It seems like your direct reasoned response to his accusation, plus your summary of the lack of a valid rebuttal to your position, and with the added invitation to be opened to more information should any be offered.

Sounds perfectly fine to me.

However this, from mitchell:

I just want to make it perfectly clear how all of gary's response to my post is such complete bullshit that I feel I am wasting my time reading his posts at all. He uses the word "evolution" for his own private heavily emotionally invested philosophy rather than any kind of scientific theory and I just give up on any hope of having a rational discussion of the topic with him.

is literally an exmaple of a "nyah-nyah" answer, grounded in a very overt immaturity.

But this is a very useful tactic of theists: Push people until you finally get them to get pissed off at your pushing, and then they can point and say, "See? See??? The 'rational' person is all up and angry and emotional! Where's your reason now, atheist?"

It's just a game they play. When you see it, call 'em out on it like you're doing. Otherwsie they think they can get away with it.

And on that note: For the record mitch, I concur that you're a hypocritical, rude, and game-playing asshole who adopts these tactics with a clearly defined ulterior motive (that you apparently think you are being nuanced and successful with... but with which you're not).

[PlunderBunny]

NO, it does not and that was only a quick and obvious answer to his example. Even if he had made it clear that you he was talking about the General theory of Relativity, I still don't think the example is really valid. Now unlike evolution, the General theory of Relativity is summed up in Einsteins field equation and one of the term in one of the most common ways of writing it includes tensors that are given the name curvature tensor and it is indeed said to represent the curvature of space time. But it is entirely possible that one may keep the equation and yet deny that the tensor represents a curvature of space time.

The who point is that none of science is any more sacred than the teachings of religion. We ARE free to disagree with any part of it that we don't believe is an accurate representation of the way things are. Of course science does include a means of settling disputes and coming to a consensus that relgion does not have. And by such means the consensus is that common decent is certainly correct. But that does change the fact that I dont think that gary's approach in criticizing Rian is a valid one in this case.

Actually it does. Taken literally, it does. Maybe you didn't mean it, but the idea that if you believe in the theory of relativity minus a curved space-time you believe in a similar theory that goes by a different name, e.g the special theory of relativity, directly supports the idea of someone like Rian instead saying she believes in 'the special theory of evolution' or whatever you want to call it.

And I think that amounts to turning this into some kind of gnostic legalist religion, saying that you cannot be a member of the in club if you don't agree with a certain set of beliefs. A lot of religion may work that way but that just isn't the way that science works!!!

I disagree. That is the way science NEEDS to work, much more so then religion.

Science is objective in nature. If you disagree on the objective truths of something, you should go by a different name and follow a different theory. There is no reason to NOT do this.

Under your method, people could say they are an evolutionist and it would have almost NO BEARING on what they actually believe. You would then have to question every person who states this on all of the ideas evolution puts forth to figure out what they actually believe. Wouldn't it be so much easier if they just said "I am a believer in the special theory of evolution" so you'd know - right off the bat - what they believe?

[gary_s]

Other than using the non-technical term "bullshit" (which some people might label a symptom of emotional reaction, though I personally am not one of them; I consider the word to be a legitimate, if colluquial, summation of a statement that is not accurate or grounded in any demonstrable or objective reality) I don't interpret your response above to mitch to be invested with much (or even any) emotion at all. It seems like your direct reasoned response to his accusation, plus your summary of the lack of a valid rebuttal to your position, and with the added invitation to be opened to more information should any be offered.

Sounds perfectly fine to me.

Thanks, KTR, for the feedback. And that was a perfect summary. There was no valid rebuttal, but I was open to listening to some. Clearly, once Mitch decides that his opinion will not be co-opted by his opponent, all he can muster is insults and name calling. It's a tactic he's been using since the beginning.

However this, from mitchell:

I just want to make it perfectly clear how all of gary's response to my post is such complete bullshit that I feel I am wasting my time reading his posts at all. He uses the word "evolution" for his own private heavily emotionally invested philosophy rather than any kind of scientific theory and I just give up on any hope of having a rational discussion of the topic with him.

is literally an exmaple of a "nyah-nyah" answer, grounded in a very overt immaturity.

But this is a very useful tactic of theists: Push people until you finally get them to get pissed off at your pushing, and then they can point and say, "See? See??? The 'rational' person is all up and angry and emotional! Where's your reason now, atheist?"

It's just a game they play. When you see it, call 'em out on it like you're doing. Otherwsie they think they can get away with it.

And on that note: For the record mitch, I concur that you're a hypocritical, rude, and game-playing asshole who adopts these tactics with a clearly defined ulterior motive (that you apparently think you are being nuanced and successful with... but with which you're not).

Exactly. Mitch's goal is to goad others into a name calling argument, then point the finger at them. There is literally no point in talking to him unless you actually thrive on insults.

[gary_s]

NO, it does not and that was only a quick and obvious answer to his example. Even if he had made it clear that you he was talking about the General theory of Relativity, I still don't think the example is really valid. Now unlike evolution, the General theory of Relativity is summed up in Einsteins field equation and one of the term in one of the most common ways of writing it includes tensors that are given the name curvature tensor and it is indeed said to represent the curvature of space time. But it is entirely possible that one may keep the equation and yet deny that the tensor represents a curvature of space time.

The who point is that none of science is any more sacred than the teachings of religion. We ARE free to disagree with any part of it that we don't believe is an accurate representation of the way things are. Of course science does include a means of settling disputes and coming to a consensus that relgion does not have. And by such means the consensus is that common decent is certainly correct. But that does change the fact that I dont think that gary's approach in criticizing Rian is a valid one in this case.

Actually it does. Taken literally, it does. Maybe you didn't mean it, but the idea that if you believe in the theory of relativity minus a curved space-time you believe in a similar theory that goes by a different name, e.g the special theory of relativity, directly supports the idea of someone like Rian instead saying she believes in 'the special theory of evolution' or whatever you want to call it.

And I think that amounts to turning this into some kind of gnostic legalist religion, saying that you cannot be a member of the in club if you don't agree with a certain set of beliefs. A lot of religion may work that way but that just isn't the way that science works!!!

I disagree. That is the way science NEEDS to work, much more so then religion.

Science is objective in nature. If you disagree on the objective truths of something, you should go by a different name and follow a different theory. There is no reason to NOT do this.

Under your method, people could say they are an evolutionist and it would have almost NO BEARING on what they actually believe. You would then have to question every person who states this on all of the ideas evolution puts forth to figure out what they actually believe. Wouldn't it be so much easier if they just said "I am a believer in the special theory of evolution" so you'd know - right off the bat - what they believe?

This exchange perfectly demonstrates my problem with Mitch. He turns a simple statement that I made into a ridiculous argument over nothing. There's not a biologist in the world that would disagree with my comments regarding evolutionary theory. They weren't even controversial, but Mitch cannot allow anyone to get a point in. He MUST be the center of attention at all times.

[gary_s]

For the record, I have never suggested what someone can or cannot believe. What I did question was Rian's statement that she does not accept macroevolution (paraphrasing here). Technically and personally, it matters not to me. She can go on thinking whatever she likes to think. But this is a forum and in a forum people discuss and debate topics. So, when someone says that they accept some parts of evolution, but reject others, I feel that it is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask them why and to point out that when they reject such a significant part of the theory, they are in effect, changing the very meaning of the theory. The theory simply does not work the same way without common descent. No matter what Mitch wants to think, this is a fact. It's actually rather odd of him to defend the idea that you can strip away parts of any theory without changing the theory. Anyone with any training in science would know this is false.

I also want to point out that Moonwood was clearly questioning Rian along the same lines and yet Mitch did not choose to insult him.

[Keep The Reason]

I also want to point out that Moonwood was clearly questioning Rian along the same lines and yet Mitch did not choose to insult him.

Yet

[gary_s]

I don't think Gary is saying you must either accept all of evolution or accept none of it, just that you should call what you believe by a different name if you deny one of it's core principles.

This is sort of my point, although I don't really care what Rian calls it. The problem with her statements is that she states support of some aspects of evolutionary theory while discounting others, yet many of these components are interrelated, so by questioning macroevolution, she is changing what the model looks like and it isn't really evolution any more. Not only that, but her support of microevolution while questioning macroevolution is scientifically inconsistent because much of the evidence actually supports both. The mechanisms are no different, one is just an observation on a longer time scale than the other.

And I think that amounts to turning this into some kind of gnostic legalist religion, saying that you cannot be a member of the in club if you don't agree with a certain set of beliefs. A lot of religion may work that way but that just isn't the way that science works!!!

That's a stupid characterization and I can easily state that this is not what I was saying. Although you know as well as I do that this most certainly IS how science works. Rian is not a scientist, so she is free to state whatever she wants about evolution. If she were an evolutionary biologist and she stated those things, she would be laughed at and would have no respect in the scientific community and her ideas wouldn't get much recognition. The consensus does matter in science. If you were a reasonable person, you would have been willing to discuss this like adults instead of insulting people who disagree with you and seeing character attacks around every corner.

[Moonwood the Hare]

And I think that amounts to turning this into some kind of gnostic legalist religion, saying that you cannot be a member of the in club if you don't agree with a certain set of beliefs. A lot of religion may work that way but that just isn't the way that science works!!!

That's a stupid characterization and I can easily state that this is not what I was saying. Although you know as well as I do that this most certainly IS how science works. Rian is not a scientist, so she is free to state whatever she wants about evolution. If she were an evolutionary biologist and she stated those things, she would be laughed at and would have no respect in the scientific community and her ideas wouldn't get much recognition. The consensus does matter in science. If you were a reasonable person, you would have been willing to discuss this like adults instead of insulting people who disagree with you and seeing character attacks around every corner.

gary am I right that you are now advocating something like Kuhnian paradigms, the idea that acceptance of theories depends in some measure on consensus rather than purely objective criteria? I had always thought you were more of a Popperian.

[gary_s]

gary am I right that you are now advocating something like Kuhnian paradigms, the idea that acceptance of theories depends in some measure on consensus rather than purely objective criteria? I had always thought you were more of a Popperian.

No, that's just going down the road Mitch was taking it. I wasn't talking about anything like that. All I was pointing out was that the evolutionary model IS the model with all the parts that we know and it explains the diversity of life since the early days of life until now. If you say you don't accept common descent as valid, then the model we know about doesn't work for you because common descent is a rather significant part of the evolutionary model. For a very simple example, it is commonly accepted that birds are descendants of dinosaurs. But if common descent is not accepted, then clearly this dinosaurs to birds connection wouldn't exist and so you need some other explanation for the emergence of birds. Same goes for the emergence of any modern specie that didn't exist millions of years ago.

Now the evidence for common descent is still there, but let's say you reject the idea of common descent. So how do you account for the observed evidence of fossils and genetics? Why do humans and apes share 98% of our DNA? What does your version of the model look like?

Ultimately, this is mostly irrelevant talk about a name and if Mitch were more reasonable he would have acknowledged this. What you call it is unimportant, but if you state a reluctance to accept something as well supported as common descent or macroevolution, then I think you could at least explain what it is that you disagree with and not just say its "extrapolated" as Rian does. That argument really doesn't say much of anything in this situation, as I believe you pointed out.

[Moonwood the Hare]

gary am I right that you are now advocating something like Kuhnian paradigms, the idea that acceptance of theories depends in some measure on consensus rather than purely objective criteria? I had always thought you were more of a Popperian.

No, that's just going down the road Mitch was taking it. I wasn't talking about anything like that. All I was pointing out was that the evolutionary model IS the model with all the parts that we know and it explains the diversity of life since the early days of life until now. If you say you don't accept common descent as valid, then the model we know about doesn't work for you because common descent is a rather significant part of the evolutionary model. For a very simple example, it is commonly accepted that birds are descendants of dinosaurs. But if common descent is not accepted, then clearly this dinosaurs to birds connection wouldn't exist and so you need some other explanation for the emergence of birds. Same goes for the emergence of any modern specie that didn't exist millions of years ago.

Now the evidence for common descent is still there, but let's say you reject the idea of common descent. So how do you account for the observed evidence of fossils and genetics? Why do humans and apes share 98% of our DNA? What does your version of the model look like?

Ultimately, this is mostly irrelevant talk about a name and if Mitch were more reasonable he would have acknowledged this. What you call it is unimportant, but if you state a reluctance to accept something as well supported as common descent or macroevolution, then I think you could at least explain what it is that you disagree with and not just say its "extrapolated" as Rian does. That argument really doesn't say much of anything in this situation, as I believe you pointed out.

Okay - no argument from me.