Some may recall the witch hunt that ensued even after Canadian Minister of State for Science Gary Goodyear affirmed his belief in evolution.
Various ridiculous excuses have been offered for the continuing witch hunt well after such hysteria may have been warranted. Some attempted to argue that because Goodyear spoke about adaptation he wasn't talking about evolution -- some of those individuals ahve been forced to eat their words after admitting that not only is adaptation central to the process of evolution, but that the specific examples cited by Goodyear fit squarely within that context.
Another, particularly insipid, argument is that Goodyear merely accepts adaptation but not the common ancestry of species. This argument basically amounts to the argument that, because Goodyear didn't speak about common ancestry, he's a secret creationist.
But the most humourous argument raised was put forth by Wingnutterer and general Sycophantic Groupthink worshipper Zorpheous:
"One does not believe in Evolution, one either accepts it as the a Scientific fact, or at least as the best Scientific theory, or you don't. 'belief' is for the sky fairies.The overwhelming stupidity of Zorpheous' argument is apparent almost immediately, the instant that one considers the meaning of the word believe.
I do not believe in Newton's Laws of Motion, I accept them as being fact and true (with in a Newtonian frame of reference). I accept The Laws of Thermodynamics as fact, no belief is required.
Also Goodyear's clarification demonstrates that he doesn't have a freaking clue about macro and micro evolution, and most like doesn't even under either and their place in complete Evolutionary Model.
In short, Goodyear only confirmed his ignorance."
It's amusing to hear someone who devotes so much of his time trying to label the entire conservative wing of the blogosphere as stupid insisting that one cannot "have confidence or faith in the truth" of a fact, or that one cannot accept a fact as "true or real".
Not to mention the fact that it can be confirmed that human adaptation to sun intensity -- as alluded to by Goodyear -- has an evolutonary basis.
As Ryan Gregory notes, these things are facts. One can only wonder how it is Zorpheous can imagine that one cannot believe in fact.
~yawn~
ReplyDeleteWell, Zorph, how about it?
ReplyDeleteHow can one not "be confident about" a fact?
You seem to owe some explanation for your comments.
Maybe you should learn to read the quotes YOU proved,... Let me quote you quoting me,...
ReplyDelete"One does not believe in Evolution, one either accepts it as the a Scientific fact, or at least as the best Scientific theory, or you don't. 'belief' is for the sky fairies.
Also Mr. Goodyear's version of adaptation has nothing to do with adaptation in Evolution theory.
If you don't understand the basis difference behavioral adaption and biological adaption, then I suggest you retake you highschool biology course.
Oh and I owe you nothing, my comments are very clear and stand.
No, Zorph, you aren't being honest here.
ReplyDeleteYou insist that someone cannot believe in a fact.
Given the meaning of the word believe, how could this possibly be true?
How can it be that one cannot accept a fact "as true or real"?
How can it be that one cannot credit a fact "with veracity"?
How can it be that one cannot "have firm faith" in something known to be a fact?
How can this be, Zorpheous?
Are you also going to deny that human skin colour has an evolutionary basis in relation to sun intensity, as Goodyear himself alluded to? Are you going to suggest that this is a mere "behavioural adaptation"?
It isn't. Science strongly supports the theory that skin colour adapts to sun intensity to prevent over-saturation of vitamin D intake.
Not to mention the interesting implications of Goodyear's footwear analysis. If you want to insist that Goodyear was speaking merely about behavioural adaptation, his words were unfortuantely ambiguous enough to allow you to do this.
But then you'd have to overlook the fact that human feet have adapted based on a long-standing tendency of humans to go barefoot.
Science has supported the theory that the use of footwear by humans has had an evolutionary effect on the bone structure of the foot, particularly the longitudinal arch.
Consistent use of different footwear -- say, running shoes or high heels -- would certainly have a different effect over the lifetime of an individual and could, over time -- sadly, more time than any of us have to ever confirm this for our selves -- could prove to be a transmittable (and thus evolutionary) trait.
Once again, more than merely a behavioural adaptation.
If you want to overlook all of this and attempt to reduce Goodyear's comments to a mere statement on behavioural adaptation, the ambiguity of Goodyear's words have unfortunately left you with that option.
But now that these things have been brought to your attention, you can no longer do so under the pretences of honesty.
Then again, considering some of the people you idolize, I think very people will be shocked when you opt for the most dishonest course of action possible.
Paddy, you believe what ever turns your crank. Goodyear doesn't accept in Evolution as a valid theory or as a scientific fact, he doesn't even "believe".
ReplyDeleteYou want to mince over the word "belief" fine, have a grand old time,... it just prooves what a complete waste of time you are.
ta-ta
Awwww. Whassa matter, Zorph?
ReplyDeleteWell, I hope you can sit down again pretty soon after this particular ass-kicking. You're going to need the rest, I think.
If you aren't willing to defend your comments on their own merit, or based on the alleged lack of merit of Goodyear's comments, then I'd say that, yes, we are done here.
Just keep in mind that you're the one who insists Goodyear doesn't believe in evolution, in defiance of his own statements. The onus is on you to prove he doesn't.
Someone needs to alert Zorpheus that "Evolution is a fact", which he said so in the very post you cited?
ReplyDeleteIs this blog some sort of "swift"-like satire?
"The overwhelming stupidity of Zorpheous' argument is apparent almost immediately, the instant that one considers the meaning of the word believe."
Actually, making a distinction between belief and scientifically gained and supported knowledge is one that's quite recognizable to someone with a background in science and/or the philosophy of science, but I guess we'll just add this to the list of things that would make you the life of any philosophy department soiree. Don't take my word for it, though. I encourage you to sign up for a philosophy of science class at your local university.
"It's amusing to hear someone who devotes so much of his time trying to label the entire conservative wing of the blogosphere as stupid insisting that one cannot "have confidence or faith in the truth" of a fact, or that one cannot accept a fact as "true or real"."
No doubt the irony of you failing to grasp the point he was raising about mere belief being distinct from the kind of confidence in knowledge that's gained through verifiable and self-correcting methodology and by doing so, illustrating that very point is lost on you.
"Not to mention the fact that it can be confirmed that human adaptation to sun intensity -- as alluded to by Goodyear -- has an evolutonary basis."
As has been explained to you several times already by people with a much better grasp on science and evolution than either you or Goodyear, adaptation != contemporary evolutionary theory, despite your desperate efforts to claim that reference to the former illustrates a good grasp of the latter. Your quote-mining effort notwithstanding, Goodyear's follow-up mention of clearly non-evolutionary adaptation (walking on concrete and shoe choice?!??!?) leave little doubt that the kind of adaptation he was referring to had nothing at all to do with contemporary biological evolutionary theory.
"One can only wonder how it is Zorpheous can imagine that one cannot believe in fact. "
On the other hand, I doubt very few familiar with your writings on the matter will wonder how you can so badly misunderstand the point Zorpheous was making.
"Actually, making a distinction between belief and scientifically gained and supported knowledge is one that's quite recognizable to someone with a background in science and/or the philosophy of science, but I guess we'll just add this to the list of things that would make you the life of any philosophy department soiree. Don't take my word for it, though. I encourage you to sign up for a philosophy of science class at your local university."
ReplyDeleteYou mean, despite the very meaning of the word "believe"?
How is that one cannot "accept that [a fact] is true or real"?
Even from the most basic philosophical position, you have no leg to stand on with this argument.
"No doubt the irony of you failing to grasp the point he was raising about mere belief being distinct from the kind of confidence in knowledge that's gained through verifiable and self-correcting methodology and by doing so, illustrating that very point is lost on you."
Right. The kind of "self-correcting methodology" that leads to "confidence or faith in the truth" of a fact.
In other words, belief.
"As has been explained to you several times already by people with a much better grasp on science and evolution than either you or Goodyear, adaptation != contemporary evolutionary theory, despite your desperate efforts to claim that reference to the former illustrates a good grasp of the latter. Your quote-mining effort notwithstanding, Goodyear's follow-up mention of clearly non-evolutionary adaptation (walking on concrete and shoe choice?!??!?) leave little doubt that the kind of adaptation he was referring to had nothing at all to do with contemporary biological evolutionary theory."
Then I suppose you'll be more than happy to refute these scientific studies that find that human adaptation to sun intensity, and human adaptation to the use of footwear -- vis a vis skin colour and the development of the longitudinal arch -- have become naturally selected traits, and thus fall squarely within the process of evolution.
That should be fun to watch.
Interestingly enough, both of these things apply directly to Goodyear's comments, no matter how much you refuse to admit this.
"On the other hand, I doubt very few familiar with your writings on the matter will wonder how you can so badly misunderstand the point Zorpheous was making."
Zorpheous has made no point worth getting.
He seeks to reduce the available meanings of the word "believe" to one that strictly denotes religious faith.
Unfortunately for him, practically every dictionary ever published -- and thus the very English language -- disagrees with him.
I'm not about to get into the business of allowing jackals to twist the English lanuage to their own ends so they can try to win an argument with it.
Nor am I prepare to allow jackals like yourself to try to win an argument by ignoring science in the name of science.
And by the way, just like Zorpheous, now that you've been confronted with science confirming that Goodyear's comments have scientific validity, you can no longer insist that he's speaking strictly of "behavioural adaptation" under the pretences of honesty.
"You mean, despite the very meaning of the word "believe"?"
ReplyDeleteThank you again for illustrating the Patrick Ross phenomenon by following the phrases with "So what you're saying..." and "You mean..." with anything but.
What I do mean is that"because of the very meaning of the word 'believe'" and because it spells out necessary but not nearly sufficient terms for scientific use of the word "fact".
"How is that one cannot "accept that [a fact] is true or real"?"
It isn't, but I do appreciate further illustration on your reliance on strawmen.
"Even from the most basic philosophical position, you have no leg to stand on with this argument."
Then I guess it's a good thing it's an argument that neither Zorpheous or I made, and I'm quite confident that those familiar with post-secondary science and (in particular) philosophy of scientific theory are capable of understanding the difference. Thanks again, though, for keeping the steady supply of humour coming.
"Then I suppose you'll be more than happy to refute these scientific studies that find that human adaptation to sun intensity, and human adaptation to the use of footwear -- vis a vis skin colour and the development of the longitudinal arch -- have become naturally selected traits, and thus fall squarely within the process of evolution."
Since I've never raised any point in refutation of such studies, I don't really feel compelled to. I will, however, point out the extreme lengths you're going to parse Goodyear's comments regarding adaptation and footwear make any suspicion that he might not have a good grasp on what he's talking about (is this science or is this "his religion"?) pale in comparison.
"That should be fun to watch."
Sorry to disappoint, but I doubt anything here will ever rival watching you revealing your partisanship and scientific illiteracy on an internationally followed and highly trafficked science blog such as Myers'. The follow-up, complete with your above claim to be "defending science" and your multiple efforts to drape your ignorance in the very science you and Goodyear don't even have a freshman grasp of has certainly been an entertaining addendum, but I operate under no misconceptions of it ever being able to top the hilarity of your Magnum Opus at PZ's.
"Thank you again for illustrating the Patrick Ross phenomenon by following the phrases with "So what you're saying..." and "You mean..." with anything but."
ReplyDeleteAudrey, you're either prepared to accept the meaning of this word, or you aren't.
You're attempting to defend some rather insipid claims that one cannot believe in a fact. By the dictionary definition of this word, one can very much believe a fact.
They can accept it as true.
They can credit it with veracity.
They can be confident about it.
By numerous definitions of the word "believe", one very much can believe in a fact.
You're either prepared to admit this fact or you aren't.
It's evident that you aren't.
"What I do mean is that"because of the very meaning of the word 'believe'" and because it spells out necessary but not nearly sufficient terms for scientific use of the word "fact"."
Aha. But there's the rub. I've never suggested that believing in something is sufficient to make it a fact.
That you would dredge something like this up seems an awful lot like... hmmm, what was that again?
Oh, yeah. A strawman argument.
No, despite your evidently intentional attempt to twist the argument, I'm pointing out -- factually -- that one can believe in a fact.
You're one of the ones trying to arbitrarily tailor the definition of this word to meet your argument.
"Then I guess it's a good thing it's an argument that neither Zorpheous or I made, and I'm quite confident that those familiar with post-secondary science and (in particular) philosophy of scientific theory are capable of understanding the difference. Thanks again, though, for keeping the steady supply of humour coming."
Really, Audrey? Really?
Let's take a closer look at Zorpheous' words:
"One does not believe in Evolution."
...Holy shit. Did you see that?
That can't be right. Let's take another look:
"One does not believe in Evolution."
Holy shit! He really did say that! Let's take another look. What else did he say?
"'Belief' is for the sky fairies."
...Wow. I wouldn't believe someone could say something so stupid if I hadn't read it myself.
Now I have. And trust me, I fully accept that stupidity as fact.
And here you are, Audrey. Defending that base stupidity. If you aren't trying to pretend that one cannot believe in fact, I can't help but wonder why you would be here trying to defend such comments.
"Since I've never raised any point in refutation of such studies, I don't really feel compelled to. I will, however, point out the extreme lengths you're going to parse Goodyear's comments regarding adaptation and footwear make any suspicion that he might not have a good grasp on what he's talking about (is this science or is this "his religion"?) pale in comparison."
The science speaks for itself, Audrey.
Both of these things -- the intensity of the sun and the use of footwear -- are things that Goodyear spoke about in his comments.
And the science speaks for itself. If you won't refute the science, you're conceding the argument.
That doesn't change just because you aren't honest enough to admit it.
"Sorry to disappoint, but I doubt anything here will ever rival watching you revealing your partisanship and scientific illiteracy on an internationally followed and highly trafficked science blog such as Myers'. The follow-up, complete with your above claim to be "defending science" and your multiple efforts to drape your ignorance in the very science you and Goodyear don't even have a freshman grasp of has certainly been an entertaining addendum, but I operate under no misconceptions of it ever being able to top the hilarity of your Magnum Opus at PZ's."
Well, Audrey, you can keep saying that.
But I've found scientific studies to support my argument. All you have is a "secret creationist" conspiracy theory mixed liberally with "because I said so" thinking.
On an intellectual basis, both amount to extremely thin gruel -- especially when one considers that you basically have to ignore the cited scientific evidence in order to do so.
Ignoring science in the name of science? I think that's a first, but you've managed it.
You're a true pioneer in intellectual dishonesty. I'm sure Zorpheous will tip his hat to you.
"You're either prepared to admit this fact or you aren't."
ReplyDeleteI haven't once argued to the contrary.
"It's evident that you aren't."
Once again, Patrick-Ross-Reading-Comprehension, FTW!
"Aha. But there's the rub. I've never suggested that believing in something is sufficient to make it a fact."
I didn't either. I quite clearly referenced "scientific use of the word 'fact'" and the constructs of necessary and sufficient conditions, and your choice to eliminate those rather relevant qualifier suggests that you already know you've lost the argument.
"You're one of the ones trying to arbitrarily tailor the definition of this word to meet your argument."
Not at all. The difference between simple belief in facts and the methodologically relevant acceptance of scientific fact (and in this case, theory) is a fundamental part of science and. It's the difference between "I believe is currently 9:45pm" and "I accept that the theory of evolution is the best current explanation that we have for the variation of life on this planet". This may not be covered all that well in Sunday School, but I think that any familiar with even introductory science or philosophy of science courses will recognize this to be the case.
"If you aren't trying to pretend that one cannot believe in fact, I can't help but wonder why you would be here trying to defend such comments."
I've already answered that question clearly above: That isn't what Zorpheous claimed. He claimed one does not believe in Evolution, and he drew a pretty clear contrast between "belief" and the acceptance of contemporary scientific theory. Perhaps if you try a little more hysteria, more amphiboly, and more employment of the term "stupid", you might even succeed in convincing a scientific illiterates or two to agree you.
"That doesn't change just because you aren't honest enough to admit it."
...As would be most University science and philosophy departments, which makes your conclusion all the more laughable and which is also why your nonsense was smacked around on a science blog. I'm comfortable with the company my position puts me in.
"especially when one considers that you basically have to ignore the cited scientific evidence in order to do so."
No one is ignoring any scientific evidence that you've posted here, PZ's blog, or mine. In fact, almost everyone has addressed it head on by pointing out it doesn't support the conclusion that you claim it does. If you want to go around patting yourself on the back for "proving" that poorly expressed and badly defined belief in adaptation proves a good grasp on contemporary biology, then I've little doubt that you might find a following. After all, Kent Hovind (admitted young-earth creationism propagandist and avid believer in biological adaptation amongst "kinds") made some money off of his prolific videos before going to jail for tax evasion. That said, I also doubt that many outside of a very narrow flock (all implications intentional) will find that kind of drivel you've spewed here, PZ's, ETP, etc... on the subject very compelling. Your international fame as of late may, however, have the unintended consequence of making any future plans you might have had for a career in the field of science slightly more difficult.
"I haven't once argued to the contrary."
ReplyDeleteThen you're clearly here to argue about nothing.
"I didn't either. I quite clearly referenced "scientific use of the word 'fact'" and the constructs of necessary and sufficient conditions, and your choice to eliminate those rather relevant qualifier suggests that you already know you've lost the argument."
Oh. My. Dear. Lord.
What was it you were saying about strawman arguments, again?
Ridiculous. You conceded this argument so long ago it isn't even funny.
"Not at all. The difference between simple belief in facts and the methodologically relevant acceptance of scientific fact (and in this case, theory) is a fundamental part of science."
No, it isn't. Not when belief in a fact encompasses acceptance of that fact.
"It's the difference between 'I believe is currently 9:45pm' and 'I accept that the theory of evolution is the best current explanation that we have for the variation of life on this planet'."
You evidently share Zorpheous' supreme talent for saying stupid things.
Not only can one verify what time it is, but one can also verify that evolution is a fact.
Furthermore, one can compare the various explanations for the development of life and accept that evolution is the best available explanation.
But that acceptance accounts for a belief, just as that belief accounts for acceptance.
"This may not be covered all that well in Sunday School, but I think that any familiar with even introductory science or philosophy of science courses will recognize this to be the case."
Apparently, these things weren't very well covered in English classes wherever you're from. I'm actually more than a little amused that you would try to argue this under the guise of being highly educated while you argue it as if you never advanced beyond grade 9.
Which I'm really starting to suspect wss the case.
"No one is ignoring any scientific evidence that you've posted here, PZ's blog, or mine. In fact, almost everyone has addressed it head on by pointing out it doesn't support the conclusion that you claim it does."
Despite the fact that, unequivocally, the evidence I've cited does support precisely what I've said it does.
Dishonestly claiming otherwise doesn't change this fact.
"If you want to go around patting yourself on the back for 'proving' that poorly expressed and badly defined belief in adaptation proves a good grasp on contemporary biology, then I've little doubt that you might find a following."
You won't refute those examples. You won't even attempt to refute that Goodyear's comments clearly alludes to these examples.
Your whole argument at this point seems to rest dependently on saying "nuh-uh!" over and over again.
It's not shocking. Apparently, you can't debate the science so you simply won't while claiming that you are.
Anyone who even remotely values honesty would be embarrassed to be doing what you're doing.
But, then again, we've known for a long time that you don't value honesty. I suppose that must help you so whole-heartedly embrace dishonesty.
"After all, Kent Hovind (admitted young-earth creationism propagandist and avid believer in biological adaptation amongst "kinds") made some money off of his prolific videos before going to jail for tax evasion. That said, I also doubt that many outside of a very narrow flock (all implications intentional) will find that kind of drivel you've spewed here, PZ's, ETP, etc... on the subject very compelling. Your international fame as of late may, however, have the unintended consequence of making any future plans you might have had for a career in the field of science slightly more difficult."
If you say so, but only because politically motivated people such as yourself are going to continue to ignore the evidence, argue dishonestly, and lie.
I don't really hold it against you. After all, bird's gotta fly. Fish has gotta swim. And Audrey II's gotta lie.
What else would someone expect from an indiidual whose made dishonesty one of her core values?