Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Dan From Smithville]

And there you have the ad hominem you were inquiring about. I've made no demands on anybody.

That is not an ad hominem. That is a reasonable assessment of what I've been reading from you.

You want to chop up posts. I do not. I am willing to live and let live on that point and you are accusing me of 'penalizing' you and others.

If you refuse to address reasonable responses to your posts simply because someone chose to respond to each individual portion in context, then you are in effect penalizing those others. I do it intentionally with the ignore list to those who I find have nothing substantial to offer, but I admit that is the penalty I choose to resort to willfully.

I guess I'm flattered that you see my not participating in your discussions is 'penalizing' you, but I have my preferences.

If that is how you wish to see it, then by all means. It was you that brought up the "demand", assertion or however you want to coat it and what would happen for noncompliance. I didn't. That you have this strict instruction isn't something I am ignoring either. I'm offering a willingness to cooperate.

I will continue to look for people who like me prefer to engage in discussion using full context.

And I and others have presented a valid argument that you have found them. Context, using the style you seem so strongly dislike, remains preserved as indicated.

If there are none here, like I said, I will just move on. I believe in allowing people to be who and what they are. I also believe in being who and what I am.

No one is dismissing your "request". If it is who you are, it is being directly addressed with all due curtesy and attention. If who you are is someone so dedicated to their own personal rules that they would dismiss others without review, perhaps you think that going where you are persistently agreed with is better. But I don't think so. I don't want others to agree with everything I say. What would I learn from that and how would I do it?

I appreciate your comments, but alas I don't have the time or patience to meet anybody half way on this issue.

So, it comes down to demand being an actual and valid assessment contrary to your claim of ad hominmen.

So I guess I'm choosing to be selfish to just look for conversations that are interesting and satisfying. Again that doesn't mean I expect others to agree with me, but I do look for people who demonstrate intellection honesty and ability to actually make an intelligent argument for their point of view. Context and intent in an argument is also important to me and I do try to respect that in another's argument including the examples and qualifications that might be included. I do require that others cite the context and content of my arguments including examples and qualifications honestly.

I don't disagree.

But context and intent are not lost when others directly and individually address the points you make. This seems to be a matter of the style you are used to and your effort to see it changed to meet you without extending the olive branch.

The topic of this thread is one that is of interest to me and I enjoy exploring the endless possibilities and concepts involved with it. But if we are incompatible in how that should be done, then oh well. Each to their own.

The topics of science, biology, evolution and the theory that explains it are interesting and important to me. I would say it is for all of us that engage here regularly. But if you choose to reward others with dismissal for some style issue, that is your choice and I would say not a very wise one given your own words.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And there you have the ad hominem you were inquiring about. I've made no demands on anybody. You want to chop up posts. I do not. I am willing to live and let live on that point and you are accusing me of 'penalizing' you and others. I guess I'm flattered that you see my not participating in your discussions is 'penalizing' you, but I have my preferences.

I will continue to look for people who like me prefer to engage in discussion using full context. If there are none here, like I said, I will just move on. I believe in allowing people to be who and what they are. I also believe in being who and what I am.

I appreciate your comments, but alas I don't have the time or patience to meet anybody half way on this issue. So I guess I'm choosing to be selfish to just look for conversations that are interesting and satisfying. Again that doesn't mean I expect others to agree with me, but I do look for people who demonstrate intellection honesty and ability to actually make an intelligent argument for their point of view. Context and intent in an argument is also important to me and I do try to respect that in another's argument including the examples and qualifications that might be included. I do require that others cite the context and content of my arguments including examples and qualifications honestly.

The topic of this thread is one that is of interest to me and I enjoy exploring the endless possibilities and concepts involved with it. But if we are incompatible in how that should be done, then oh well. Each to their own.

I've enjoyed our discussion so far and it has given me much to think about and even provided incites to my own positions. However you may see it, I have seen it as positive and appreciate your comments whether I agree with them or not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And there you have the ad hominem you were inquiring about. I've made no demands on anybody. You want to chop up posts. I do not. I am willing to live and let live on that point and you are accusing me of 'penalizing' you and others. I guess I'm flattered that you see my not participating in your discussions is 'penalizing' you, but I have my preferences.

I will continue to look for people who like me prefer to engage in discussion using full context. If there are none here, like I said, I will just move on. I believe in allowing people to be who and what they are. I also believe in being who and what I am.

I appreciate your comments, but alas I don't have the time or patience to meet anybody half way on this issue. So I guess I'm choosing to be selfish to just look for conversations that are interesting and satisfying. Again that doesn't mean I expect others to agree with me, but I do look for people who demonstrate intellection honesty and ability to actually make an intelligent argument for their point of view. Context and intent in an argument is also important to me and I do try to respect that in another's argument including the examples and qualifications that might be included. I do require that others cite the context and content of my arguments including examples and qualifications honestly.

The topic of this thread is one that is of interest to me and I enjoy exploring the endless possibilities and concepts involved with it. But if we are incompatible in how that should be done, then oh well. Each to their own.

I also recognize and appreciate your efforts here to apply some of this culture to your posts. Thank you.

 

[ppp]

My assertion is my argument.

You are, of course, free to demand that your assertions are arguments all the live long day. You join an ancient tradition of random humans demanding on street corners and in bars that their opinions reflect reality for no other reason than the fact that they assert that opinion..

 

[Foxfyre]

You are, of course, free to demand that your assertions are arguments all the live long day. You join an ancient tradition of random humans demanding on street corners and in bars that their opinions reflect reality for no other reason than the fact that they assert that opinion..

And that sort of ad hominem assumption is why I choose at times to be selective in who I spend time conversing with. (Hint: those who argue that way will be dead wrong 99% of the time.) Do have a pleasant day.

 

[ppp]

And that sort of ad hominem assumption is why I choose at times to be selective in who I spend time conversing with. (Hint: those who argue that way will be dead wrong 99% of the time.) Do have a pleasant day.

Do you know what an ad hominem fallacy is?

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you know what an ad hominem fallacy is?

Yes dear. I teach it. But thanks for asking.

 

[ppp]

Yes dear. I teach it. But thanks for asking.

Really? What do you teach your students that an ad hominem fallacy is? You seem to be a little lost on the matter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Einstein was not used as an appeal to authority Einstein was used as an example of scientific opinion. And I do not accept that science evolves. Science is absolute. It is only our understanding, usually incomplete and often flawed, that evolves.

Science is a system of knowledge acquired by following the scientific method. That is a method where one studies a topic. Proposes an explanation and then tests and actively tries to refute one's own explanation. It is the testing of ideas that makes the scientific method work. And if one does not try to refute one's own idea an even worse fate can meet it. Others will test one's idea and see if they can refute it.

As a result "science" is always changing and tends to get more and more correct as time goes on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? What do you teach your students that an ad hominem fallacy is? You seem to be a little lost on the matter.

I cannot give any statistics, but I have found that most accusations of using the ad hominem fallacy are false. People often think that any perceived insult is an ad hom fallacy. But I am also curious as to what @Foxfyre considers to be the definition of that fallacy.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

that sort of ad hominem assumption

You say that you teach this?

He wrote, "You are, of course, free to demand that your assertions are arguments all the live long day. You join an ancient tradition of random humans demanding on street corners and in bars that their opinions reflect reality for no other reason than the fact that they assert that opinion."

The proper name is an ad hominem fallacy. Lay people use the term ad hominem as a synonym for insult as you seem to be doing here, although I don't see an insult in his words. Where do you see an argument there? I see unsupported claims which I happen to agree with. The evidence in prior posts, not that claim.

My point is that if one doesn't make an argument, once cannot make a fallacious argument.

His language was descriptive (expository). The word demand might be a little stronger than need be, but the rest seems to be claims of fact. You HAVE called bare assertions arguments when they are not (What is it you teach and to what aged students?), you are just some random person that we don't know to him and me, and it is indeed almost as old as writing itself that people have simply asserted ideas as fact even when they're not. It's at least as old as the Old Testament.

You might not like being grouped with such, but there is no reason not to. You fit that description.

 

[Foxfyre]

Science is a system of knowledge acquired by following the scientific method. That is a method where one studies a topic. Proposes an explanation and then tests and actively tries to refute one's own explanation. It is the testing of ideas that makes the scientific method work. And if one does not try to refute one's own idea an even worse fate can meet it. Others will test one's idea and see if they can refute it.

As a result "science" is always changing and tends to get more and more correct as time goes on.

The 'scientific method' is a human invention and it not itself science. In its simplest definition, Science is "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained:"

Or according to Britannica: "Science, any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation." (I rather think Britannica's version is closest to an accurate definition.)

The probable allegorical tale of Columbus observing ship masts sinking and disappearing behind the horizon (or vice versa) and concluding that the world was not flat but rather round from that observation is one of the more primitive examples of science. But it is nevertheless science. The flat Earthers dispute that by believing the ships are sailing in a circle on a flat surface. The fact of a round Earth was established definitively once we could go into space and observe and photograph it from there. (Of course the flat Earthers maintain the photos and testimony are bogus.)

I strongly believe that anything scientific that does not allow itself to be questioned or challenged is not science but rather dogma. A true scientist wants to get it right however long that takes and keep an open mind that he/she doesn't know all there is to know.

 

[ppp]

I cannot give any statistics, but I have found that most accusations of using the ad hominem fallacy are false. People often think that any perceived insult is an ad hom fallacy. But I am also curious as to what @Foxfyre considers to be the definition of that fallacy.

Yeah. The usage of "ad hominem" on this forum so often comes down to nothing more than either "I feel insulted" or "Let me use this term to hide the fact that I have nothing to say"