Favorite Fallacies—of the Very Informal Kind

Originally posted by jaywill
I don't know about saying "It cannot be questioned". I have plenty of questions.

While it bores you to hear the Scripture...

It bores me specifically because it cannot be questioned. Luckily here, I won't be bored, because I have no intention of reading your post beyond those first two lines. You essentially wish to dictate to me your whole 'spiritual dimension' or whatever it is you want to call it. You want to preach on and on and sound authoritative on the matter. You do not want anyone to actually question you on any of it. If I do, you will always have an escape clause along the lines of 'it doesn't follow your rules' or 'it must be experienced (and you haven't experienced it but I have'😉.
If I on the other hand tell you about the spiritual dimension you won't believe a word of it.

Much as you would like to evade this fact, you are evading, and I think that you are starting to realise it.

Originally posted by jaywill

edit - Incidentally, get with the programme! Pluto's not a planet any more.

Yea! Science had it wrong before.

At the risk of boring you (I know you've been told this a few times before) that's how science works. Science can even accommodate gods and miracles in the unlikely event of any evidence being found to support such things.

Originally posted by jaywill

edit - Incidentally, get with the programme! Pluto's not a planet any more.

Yea! Science had it wrong before.

Actually no. Definitions are never wrong. And Pluto being a planet was merely by definition. It was not wrong. That the definition has been changed and it is no longer a planet is not wrong either. If you change your name, will you say "I was named wrong before"?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually no. Definitions are never wrong. And Pluto being a planet was merely by definition. It was not wrong. That the definition has been changed and it is no longer a planet is not wrong either. If you change your name, will you say "I was named wrong before"?

I guess that is why there was absolutely no dispute or argument ever among astronomers about the changing of Pluto's status.

It was totally hunky dory with everyone, no problem. Huh?

Originally posted by jaywill
I guess that is why there was absolutely [b]no dispute or argument ever among astronomers about the changing of Pluto's status.

It was totally hunky dory with everyone, no problem. Huh?[/b]

Of course there was dispute. People tend to get attached to their definitions, so some people wanted to hold onto the old one. Other people felt that the definition should be changed to better fit the currently known bodies of the solar system.
It was a case of keep the old definition and consider including a number of new 'planets', some of which would be smaller than many of the moons, or change the definition and reduce the planet count by one.

But were scientists 'wrong' to call Pluto a planet in the past? No.
Are scientists 'wrong' to not call Pluto a planet now? No.
Was the change a sign that science was wrong? No.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course there was dispute. People tend to get attached to their definitions, so some people wanted to hold onto the old one. Other people felt that the definition should be changed to better fit the currently known bodies of the solar system.
It was a case of keep the old definition and consider including a number of new 'planets', some of which would ng' to not call Pluto a planet now? No.
Was the change a sign that science was wrong? No.

Copied without permission from Universe Today:

Astronomers decided they would make a final decision about the definition of a planet at the XXVIth General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union, which was held from August 14 to August 25, 2006 in Prague, Czech Republic.

Astronomers from the association were given the opportunity to vote on the definition of planets. One version of the definition would have actually boosted the number of planets to 12; Pluto was still a planet, and so were Eris and even Ceres, which had been thought of as the largest asteroid. A different proposal kept the total at 9, defining the planets as just the familiar ones we know without any scientific rationale, and a third would drop the number of planets down to 8, and Pluto would be out of the planet club. But, then… what is Pluto?

In the end, astronomers voted for the controversial decision of demoting Pluto (and Eris) down to the newly created classification of “dwarf planet”.

At least during the "contraversial" stage of the debate camps of scientists argued about the rightness or the wrongness of Pluto's previous and future classification. Some disputations take longer, maybe years.

During those episodes someone with scientific credentials has the right to say that someone else's science is WRONG and someone else's science is RIGHT.

And some scientific contraveries last for decades or longer. During that time certainly some have the position to declare that someone's science, someone's "knowledge" is in fact incorrect.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually no. Definitions are never wrong. And Pluto being a planet was merely by definition. It was not wrong. That the definition has been changed and it is no longer a planet is not wrong either. If you change your name, will you say "I was named wrong before"?

Actually no. Definitions are never wrong. And Pluto being a planet was merely by definition. It was not wrong. That the definition has been changed and it is no longer a planet is not wrong either. If you change your name, will you say "I was named wrong before"?

If I change my name, in some situations, if not all, it would be said by someone "You were named wrong before."

This is why the FBI will trace the aliases of someone changing names to avoid criminal prosecution.

Originally posted by jaywill
Copied without permission from Universe Today:


[quote] Astronomers decided they would make a final decision about the definition of a planet at the XXVIth General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union, which was held from August 14 to August 25, 2006 in Prague, Czech Republic.

Astronomers from the association were given the opportunity to ...[text shortened]... position to declare that someone's science, someone's "knowledge" is in fact incorrect.

You're just showing you know very little about science. How we define what is and is what is not a planet is not science.

Originally posted by Barts
You're just showing you know very little about science. How we define what is and is what is not a planet is not science.

Science means knowledge. Are you saying definitions are not knowledge ?

Originally posted by jaywill
Science means knowledge. Are you saying definitions are not knowledge ?

I'd say science is not knowledge, but rather that science is one (very important) way of expanding our knowledge.

Even if science is knowledge, then definitions are still not science. Definitions are a tool that we can use to classify our knowledge, which makes it easier to share. However, the same can be said of books, which, while they contain knowledge, are not knowledge themselves.

Edit; I see you're referring to the etymology of "science" which has it's roots in the latin word of knowledge. This does not mean that they are synonyms.

Originally posted by jaywill
At least during the "contraversial" stage of the debate camps of scientists argued about the rightness or the wrongness of Pluto's previous and future classification. Some disputations take longer, maybe years.

I think you are confusing science with culture. The choice of definition in this case had more to do with culture than anything else.
Can you cite any argument made by any scientist on any side of the debate that is a scientific argument for a given definition for 'planet'?

During those episodes someone with scientific credentials has the right to say that someone else's science is WRONG and someone else's science is RIGHT.
Again, I will point out that definitions are not science. So no, they do not say that someone else's science is wrong. They say someone elses definition is unsatisfactory (for whatever reason).

And some scientific contraveries last for decades or longer. During that time certainly some have the position to declare that someone's science, someone's "knowledge" is in fact incorrect.
Keep to the specific issue. I have not said that scientists never get things wrong. I am saying that this particular issue is not a case of science being wrong. It is a case of a definition being changed. Nothing more, nothing less.

I repeat:
Definitions are not science.
Definitions are not right or wrong (in that they do not contain any truth value).

Definitions may be useful for science. Definitions may be well thought out or badly thought out (causing them to be more or less useful).

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think you are confusing science with culture. The choice of definition in this case had more to do with culture than anything else.
Can you cite any argument made by any scientist on any side of the debate that is a scientific argument for a given definition for 'planet'?

[b]During those episodes someone with scientific credentials has the right to may be well thought out or badly thought out (causing them to be more or less useful).

[/b] I think your attempt to place Science in some kind of error free realm in which it cannot possibly be wrong, is a kind of idealism.

"Science by nature can never be incorrect" - something like that kind of idealism you display to me.

I think Science is made up of definitions. I don't know how it can be discussed apart from many definitions.

Do you believe that Ptolemy's definition of the Universe was wrong or right ?

Do you believe that Copernicus's definition of the Universe was more right than that of Ptolemy's ?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree. The only reason you could have for inventing a 'mystical realm' or 'supernatural realm' or 'transcendental realm' is to effectively say 'it follows different laws, that cannot be questioned'.
OK, maybe you don't realise you are doing it, but evasion is what is going on. You do not want to be pinned down to reality.

Appeal to Reality

Equivocation.

Originally posted by jaywill
I think your attempt to place Science in some kind of error free realm in which it cannot possibly be wrong, is a kind of idealism.

"Science by nature can never be incorrect" - something like that kind of idealism you display to me.

I make no such claims.

I think Science is made up of definitions.
You think wrong.

I don't know how it can be discussed apart from many definitions.
It is discussed using definitions, everything is. That is what language is, a series of words which have definitions. That in no way means that the concepts that can be discussed using language are therefore definitions, or that that is all they are.

Do you believe that Ptolemy's definition of the Universe was wrong or right ?
I do not know what his definition of the universe was. But his definition could not be right or wrong.
Whether something exists that matches his definition is another question.

I suspect what you wanted to ask was "Do you believe that Ptolemy's description of the Universe was wrong or right ?". A description is not the same thing as a definition.

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition

A descriptive definition can be shown to be "right" or "wrong" by comparison to general usage, but a stipulative definition can only be disproved by showing a logical contradiction.

Note how no reference to reality is made?

If I define a "punicorn" as "an invisible pink unicorn that lives in my fridge." Then you may say: but invisible items cannot be pink, you are being illogical. Then you might have a case. Or you might say: but most people know 'punicorns' to be yellow unicorns that hide in fridges. Then you might have a case. But you cannot say: there are only yellow unicorns in fridges, therefore your definition is wrong. Nor can you say "the right definition for 'punicorn' is 'purple unicorn' because that's what a scientific experiment found."

Originally posted by twhitehead
I make no such claims.

[b]I think Science is made up of definitions.
You think wrong.

I don't know how it can be discussed apart from many definitions.
It is discussed using definitions, everything is. That is what language is, a series of words which have definitions. That in no way means that the concepts that can be discussed using n' is 'purple unicorn' because that's what a scientific experiment found."[/b]

I said that I think you put forth a concept that Science by nature cannnot be incorrect. To this you replied:

I make no such claims.

You make no such claim. Can I by this assume that you do not object to the idea that Science can be incorrect then sometimes ?

me:
I think Science is made up of definitions.

tw:
You think wrong.

I don't think I am wrong. I did not mean that science is made up of nothing else. So why is it wrong thinking to say that, among other things, science is made up of definitions ?

me:
I don't know how it can be discussed apart from many definitions.

tw:
It is discussed using definitions, everything is. That is what language is, a series of words which have definitions. That in no way means that the concepts that can be discussed using language are therefore definitions, or that that is all they are.

Once again, I did not mean that science is made of up definitions and nothing else. But the definitions put a practical handle on ideas and thoughts whereby they can be communicated.

The "universe" proposed by Ptolemy was "geocentric" and proported that all things "revolved" around the "sun."

We now know more about the "universe." Copernicus proved that the "astronomical bodies" revolved around the sun in a "solar system" - a "heliocentric" system.

We talk about science (and other things) through definitions. "Universe" is a word whose definition underwent a change.

What is taboo about us saying that Ptolemy's "universe" was less correct than that of Copernicus ? The previous science, we now know, was incorrect.

In the second lecture by Professor Jeffrey L. Kasser of the University of North Carolina State on Philosophy of Science, in discussing the history of science and the philosophy of it says this:

" ... there is something about science special enough to make it worth philosophizing about and some confidence that philosophy will have something valuable to tell us about science. The first assumption needs little defense; most of us, most of the time, place a distinctive trust in science. This is evidenced by our attitudes toward technology and by such notions as who counts as an expert witness or commentator. Yet we're at least dimly aware that history shows that many scientific theories (indeed, almost all of them, at least by one standard of counting) have been shown to be mistaken."

Do you disagree with this paragraph ? If you do not, then I see no problem with saying that Science had something wrong and latter had it more right or some similar observation about the relative correctness of Science.

This line of debate started because I said, somewhat mischievously, I admit "Yea, science had it wrong before."

Now will you argue that science theories are not part of science ?
What will you do?

" Yet we're at least dimly aware that history shows that many scientific theories (indeed, almost all of them, at least by one standard of counting) have been shown to be mistaken."


I don't know if I ever told you of the cute cartoon I saw which is a favorite of mine. It shows some scientists standing around a board with all kinds of complex calculations written on it. And one of them is saying to the others -

"The most depressing thing is that everything we believe here today will one day be proved wrong."

It was not a religious publication that showed that cartoon. And I think it makes a good point.