subjective science

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
LoL

Alrighty then, I'll leave you alone to play with your strawman doll.
Sorry to have interfered with your playtime activity.

So you arrive in the thread, make a wrong assumption, defend a mistake by dj2becker, don't bother read the article, fight a corner based on the mistake, not reading the article and your imagination, throw some ad hominems at people, claim righteous indignation and flounce off.

Typical and funny stuff

Originally posted by @fmf
It is not an attempted characterization of what you said.

It is a new question - straightforward and point blank - responding to what you said, and seeking to move the conversation along.

Here it is again:

If a student laid out the [b]'it's a wholly natural phenomenon' case and then laid out the 'it's the creation of an intelligent supernatural ...[text shortened]... hat they found neither view convincing - or proven - in and of itself, would you give them zero?

I was referring specifically to my Physics students.

Obviously not. I would have to assess whether or not the reasons they gave for not knowing made sense or not. If they merely said I don't know with no substantiated argument I might be temped to give them a zero, that's if I was teaching philosophy.

Now it terms of your agnosticism, what substantiated argument could you give for going with the 'I don't know' answer? Saying you find neither convincing is a cop out. If my students simply said that without substantiating their claim they would probably fail.

Originally posted by @divegeester
So you arrive in the thread, make a wrong assumption, defend a mistake by dj2becker, don't bother read the article, fight a corner based on the mistake, not reading the article and your imagination, throw some ad hominems at people, claim righteous indignation and flounce off.

Typical and funny stuff

Which mistake of mine did he defend?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Which mistake of mine did he defend?

You and lemon lime both seem to think Dr Watson's work has some bearing on your superstitious beliefs about "intelligent design" by your creator god figure.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I was referring specifically to my Physics students.

Why were you referring to Physics students giving answers to questions about physics when we were discussing questions regarding personal religious beliefs? It seems a peculiar analogy for you to attempt to use.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Which mistake of mine did he defend?

Are you pretending that you don't know what I'm talking about?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I would have to assess whether or not the reasons they gave for not knowing made sense or not. If they merely said I don't know with no substantiated argument I might be temped to give them a zero, that's if I was teaching philosophy.

But why would students be attempting to answer questions in an academic situation where they did not have anything - by which I mean arguments - to write about the knowledge and ideas they are being tested on? What kind of convoluted teacher-student scenario is this?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Now it terms of your agnosticism, what substantiated argument could you give for going with the 'I don't know' answer? Saying you find neither convincing is a cop out. If my students simply said that without substantiating their claim they would probably fail.

I am not "claiming" that I don't know. I am telling you that I don't know. I certainly would not be in a situation where I was a student and you were my teacher, so whether you find my agnosticism and abstention ~ or my reasons for them ~ "convincing" or not - or whether you would give me a "fail" - is of no concern to me.

I have told you before why I am open to the idea that there is a creator, that I am open to the idea of recognizing such a creator if it were to reveal itself - which, as you know, I don't think has happened - and I have told you before why I am not a religionist like you and why I don't have the same notions of supernatural causality as you do. So you need not ask me to repeat any of that.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Are you pretending that you don't know what I'm talking about?

Are you pretending that I do know what you're talking about?

Originally posted by @fmf
You and lemon lime both seem to think Dr Watson's work has some bearing on your superstitious beliefs about "intelligent design" by your creator god figure.

How can someone who 'doesn't know' en be in a position to decide whether his work has some bearing on the intelligent design argument?

Originally posted by @fmf
Why were you referring to Physics students giving answers to questions about physics when we were discussing questions regarding personal religious beliefs? It seems a peculiar analogy for you to attempt to use.

It was to demonstrate that claiming to not know is the easy and most convenient way out because then you have nothing to defend and you can just keep attacking everyone else.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Now it terms of your agnosticism, what substantiated argument could you give for going with the 'I don't know' answer? Saying you find neither convincing is a cop out. If my students simply said that without substantiating their claim they would probably fail.

I cannot see how you could possibly be in a situation where you'd be giving a "pass" or "fail" to people for their notions about unprovable supernatural phenomena and beings - about which you have strong beliefs, and dissent from which you vehemently reject - unless you were vetting them for membership of some sort of intellectually authoritarian religious group.

Or unless you were just trying to brainwash these so-called "students" into agreeing with you [or accept the "fail" you'd be dishing out].

You are not depicting yourself in a role that I recognize as a genuine "educator". You sound like a character from your childhood, and teens, and early 20s.

Originally posted by @fmf
I am not "claiming" that I don't know. I am telling you that I don't know. I certainly would not be in a situation where I was a student and you were my teacher, so whether you find my agnosticism and abstention ~ or my reasons for them ~ "convincing" or not - or whether you would give me a "fail" - is of no concern to me.

I have told you before why I am op ...[text shortened]... same notions of supernatural causality as you do. So you need not ask me to repeat any of that.

If you don't know, how can you tell that Dr Watson's work doesn't support the notion of intelligent design?

Originally posted by @fmf
I cannot see how you could possibly be in a situation where you'd be giving a "pass" or "fail" to people for their notions about unprovable supernatural phenomena and beings - about which you have strong beliefs, and dissent from which you vehemently reject - unless you were vetting them for membership of some sort of intellectually authoritarian religious grou ...[text shortened]... a genuine "educator". You sound like a character from your childhood, and teens, and early 20s.

The question I answered was your scenario not mine, or have you forgotten that you framed the question?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
It was to demonstrate that claiming to not know is the easy and most convenient way out because then you have nothing to defend and you can just keep attacking everyone else.

I reckon there are countless millions of Christians who find professing their superstitious explanations for our existence and for the human condition is the easy and most convenient way to live their lives.

If you feel I have nothing to defend and, instead, just keep attacking everyone else for no reason, what would you have me do?

Pretend that I am superstitious/religious but have a different creation/universe concept from yours, and defend that?

Or pretend that I am certain there is no creator, and defend - or seek to prove - that?

If you feel I have "nothing to defend", then so be it: and if so, what is it you want to talk to me about?