Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Hektore · 06-16-2008, 11:17 AM

Whether Einstein actually issued such a proof is beside the point I was trying to make which is why I qualified it with "(I hope)". What I was trying to say by example (although it may have been a bad one) is that when you choose to put forth a theory (for whatever reason) that is contrary to the current understanding, you need to provide compelling evidence that the current understanding is wrong or needs to be modified. Scientific theories aren't made up and thrown around all willy-nilly like. I believe this is where a lot of the misunderstanding originates.

If I may attempt another example which I have touched on before - I don't care if you believe it or not, there is in fact a large volume of sound evidence which indicates evolution a reliable, solid theory. I believe that no decent scientist would outright say it is impossible that evolutionary theory is flat out wrong. That doesn't give you permission to make the claim that it is,nor does it make the argument against it any more or less valid. What it means is that if you are going to present an alternative theory then you also need to present evidence that supports your theory, demonstrate how evidence being used to support evolution does not actually support it or produce evidence that contradicts the current understanding of the theory. If you are going to change minds you need to do one of those three things.

When a person is referenced as an authority on a subject it is because they contributed a great deal of knowledge to the current understanding and referencing them is much more practical in a conversation that reiterating their arguments. If you want to question or call into doubt their work you should at least be familiar with it and prepared to address it. If you run across any scientist who doesn't wish to help you further your understanding or doesn't want to address a legitimate arguments against the current understandings it isn't because they're an elitist scientist. It's because they're either an idiot, an asshole or both.

06-16-2008, 11:17 AM	#16 (permalink)
Hektore Junkie Location: Greater Harrisburg Area	Whether Einstein actually issued such a proof is beside the point I was trying to make which is why I qualified it with "(I hope)". What I was trying to say by example (although it may have been a bad one) is that when you choose to put forth a theory (for whatever reason) that is contrary to the current understanding, you need to provide compelling evidence that the current understanding is wrong or needs to be modified. Scientific theories aren't made up and thrown around all willy-nilly like. I believe this is where a lot of the misunderstanding originates. If I may attempt another example which I have touched on before - I don't care if you believe it or not, there is in fact a large volume of sound evidence which indicates evolution a reliable, solid theory. I believe that no decent scientist would outright say it is impossible that evolutionary theory is flat out wrong. That doesn't give you permission to make the claim that it is,nor does it make the argument against it any more or less valid. What it means is that if you are going to present an alternative theory then you also need to present evidence that supports your theory, demonstrate how evidence being used to support evolution does not actually support it or produce evidence that contradicts the current understanding of the theory. If you are going to change minds you need to do one of those three things. When a person is referenced as an authority on a subject it is because they contributed a great deal of knowledge to the current understanding and referencing them is much more practical in a conversation that reiterating their arguments. If you want to question or call into doubt their work you should at least be familiar with it and prepared to address it. If you run across any scientist who doesn't wish to help you further your understanding or doesn't want to address a legitimate arguments against the current understandings it isn't because they're an elitist scientist. It's because they're either an idiot, an asshole or both. __________________ The advantage law is the best law in rugby, because it lets you ignore all the others for the good of the game.