Some of you might find this of interest. Popular YouTube science and atheist advocate Thunderf00t challenged Way of the Master leader Ray Comfort to a one-on-one debate between himself, a pro-science "prominent atheist", and Comfort - just the two of them, no audience. (Long time posters to P&R may remember the debate between Comfort, Kirk Cameron and the Rational Response Squad.) The story of the events leading up to the debate could fill a post by itself, but regardless, the debate finally happened.
It's in several parts, and the first part is here.
i'm withholding my comments for the moment (mostly because i'm still not quite through all the parts yet), but how does everyone think they did? Hmm...watched the first two and not really impressed. Will reserve comment until I watch the rest....
I got about a minute in and had to stop because it was so uncomfortable.
Ray: Why the name thunderf00t?
TF: I used to play capture the flag on this game.
Ray: Oh, I thought it's because you like stepping on Christians. LOL
Me: ¬_¬
| joe_042293 wrote: |
I got about a minute in and had to stop because it was so uncomfortable.
Ray: Why the name thunderf00t?
TF: I used to play capture the flag on this game.
Ray: Oh, I thought it's because you like stepping on Christians. LOL
Me: ¬_¬ |
i know! That was... horrible. -_- i guess Comfort thought he was making a joke to break the ice but... wow.
Honestly, Comfort's squirm-inducing all the way through, but that was pretty much the worst of it for me. After that it's less squirm-inducing, and more jaw-dropping. (Money shot: Thunderf00t gets Comfort to admit he believes in witches and demons.)I went through four of the discussions and Thunderf00t's review. I thought you could do better Indi. Possibly because Thunderf00t was so mild and the discussion lacked real passion and energy. All of the subjects covered in the shows I saw have been covered in Frihost, in some regards more extensively and thoroughly and with a greater dimension of education. These discussions were so dry, I really had to focus hard so that I would not loose the thread of it.
Bottomline for me is that Richard Dawkins did not want to debate Comfort, perhaps he thought Comfort was not someone he could learn anything from. So maybe you would not want to debate this Comfort character either?
I liked Thunderf00t, but get a sense that he would probably be better in debate in writing, than in a live discussion.
| Indi wrote: |
| (Money shot: Thunderf00t gets Comfort to admit he believes in witches and demons.) |
Did you want to create a forum topic out of this one? 
I watched the first three....and then I had enough haha
Of what I watched, I thought it was almost completely empty of useful dialogue. The organization was pretty horrible (maybe all debates are like this, I don't watch too many), the topics didn't seem too interesting, the "factions" didn't seem that interested. Everything went pretty much like:
A: Insert some philosophical or scientific notion/question
B: I know it because God did it
Just plain empty, boring discussion
| liljp617 wrote: |
I watched the first three....and then I had enough haha
Of what I watched, I thought it was almost completely empty of useful dialogue. The organization was pretty horrible (maybe all debates are like this, I don't watch too many), the topics didn't seem too interesting, the "factions" didn't seem that interested. Everything went pretty much like:
A: Insert some philosophical or scientific notion/question
B: I know it because God did it
Just plain empty, boring discussion |
I thought it was a funny "oops" right at the beginning of the first show, when Thunderf00t said: "thank God ...!", and he got away with it too 
I do like him however, he seems to be very honest and sincere. He very openly and honestly admitted (in his own review of the discussions) that he has very little experience in public debate of this kind. | deanhills wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | I watched the first three....and then I had enough haha
Of what I watched, I thought it was almost completely empty of useful dialogue. The organization was pretty horrible (maybe all debates are like this, I don't watch too many), the topics didn't seem too interesting, the "factions" didn't seem that interested. Everything went pretty much like:
A: Insert some philosophical or scientific notion/question
B: I know it because God did it
Just plain empty, boring discussion |
I thought it was a funny "oops" right at the beginning of the first show, when Thunderf00t said: "thank God ...!", and he got away with it too I do like him however, he seems to be very honest and sincere. He very openly and honestly admitted (in his own review of the discussions) that he has very little experience in public debate of this kind. |
Kind of humorous, but it's of course a cultural figure of speech that's almost impossible not to have in your vocabulary (especially when a great number of atheists actually grew up under some religion).
They both seemed very inexperienced and lacking any enthusiasm for their positions.
I can only assume the the pages Comfort was holding were just a huge list saying "God did it, that's the beauty of it" over and over. | liljp617 wrote: |
| I can only assume the the pages Comfort was holding were just a huge list saying "God did it, that's the beauty of it" over and over. |
I can't put my finger on "why", but Comfort did not do anything for me at all. Almost as though he is coming to the debate without any openness at all, but his own fixed ideas. I listened to the discussion about "Banana Man", and his take on the intelligent design of bananas. I must say, I can understand why Richard Dawkins would not want to enter into a debate with him. His nick name for Comfort "banana man" is right on the number for me.This is a good example of why you need to invest in a decent mic (or in this case one for each person) and not just a decent camera and lighting. Or, you will end up with good video and bad sound. Someone using the camera would have been a nice touch as well. [Sorry... pro sound, lighting, projection, and video are another interest.]
Apart from the technical...
I find it interesting that so many choose The Scientific Method as the grand measure and grand prover of all things. So, let me make a profoundly simple point: The Scientific Method can't be proven by the scientific method. That is to say that by employing the scientific method you can never prove the scientific method. Therefore, for those to whom the scientific method is the end-all, and who understand my profoundly simple point, you find yourself in a quandary. You are not playing by your own rules. And that is called cheating.
If, on the other hand, you only use the scientific method from time to time and admit its limitations, you are being a much more honest debater.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Bottomline for me is that Richard Dawkins did not want to debate Comfort, perhaps he thought Comfort was not someone he could learn anything from. So maybe you would not want to debate this Comfort character either? |
That's not true, Dawkins never said he wouldn't debate Comfort. He just said that Comfort would have to pay the charge for the debate: the standard charge he sets for doing debates any time. If i wanted to debate Dawkins, i would have to shell out the cash.
| deanhills wrote: |
| I liked Thunderf00t, but get a sense that he would probably be better in debate in writing, than in a live discussion. |
Well, he's a popular presenter of science, but there's a big difference between hosting a show and having a debate.
| farmerdave wrote: |
I find it interesting that so many choose The Scientific Method as the grand measure and grand prover of all things. So, let me make a profoundly simple point: The Scientific Method can't be proven by the scientific method. That is to say that by employing the scientific method you can never prove the scientific method. Therefore, for those to whom the scientific method is the end-all, and who understand my profoundly simple point, you find yourself in a quandary. You are not playing by your own rules. And that is called cheating.
If, on the other hand, you only use the scientific method from time to time and admit its limitations, you are being a much more honest debater. |
Er... i don't think you really have a clue what you're talking about. The scientific method cannot be used to prove anything. And it certainly can't be used to even consider itself because the scientific method is methodological naturalism... it applies to analyzing nature, not analyzing methodologies.
To bring up the fact that the scientific method doesn't apply to the scientific method - as if it is a great point against the scientific method - is as lame as saying that the Sieve of Eratosthenes can't find the Sieve of Eratosthenes for you: well, duh, the Sieve of Eratosthenes finds prime numbers, it doesn't find mathematical techniques. But does that make the Sieve of Eratosthenes any less useful? Of course not.
That being said, there are several philosophical methods that do lead to the conclusion that the scientific method is the best method for analyzing nature. Empiricism is one, materialism is another, and there are several more.
The scientific method is not the "end-all" to anyone. It is simply the best tool mankind has ever developed for exploring and understanding nature. It won't help you decide which Beatles song is the best. It won't help you pick winning stocks. It won't help you choose the best menu for a party. All it does it help you to understand nature, and it does it damn well. And that fact is not only evidenced by the amazing success it has had, it is also evidenced by the dozens of ways, philosophically, that you can arrive at the conclusion that the scientific method is the best way to explore nature.
Seriously, man, if you're going to go criticizing the scientific method, at least take the time to get a vague notion of what it is and what it does (and, by extension, what it isn't and what it can't do). | Indi wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Bottomline for me is that Richard Dawkins did not want to debate Comfort, perhaps he thought Comfort was not someone he could learn anything from. So maybe you would not want to debate this Comfort character either? |
That's not true, Dawkins never said he wouldn't debate Comfort. He just said that Comfort would have to pay the charge for the debate: the standard charge he sets for doing debates any time. If i wanted to debate Dawkins, i would have to shell out the cash. |
Maybe you need to check this show, which I picked up on while I was looking at the one you quoted. It says that when Comfort challenged Richard Dawkins for a debate on the existence of God that Dawkins refused, calling Comfort "Banana Man" and "an Ignorant Fool":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHaSZtf5I1k&feature=fvw | deanhills wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | Bottomline for me is that Richard Dawkins did not want to debate Comfort, perhaps he thought Comfort was not someone he could learn anything from. So maybe you would not want to debate this Comfort character either? |
That's not true, Dawkins never said he wouldn't debate Comfort. He just said that Comfort would have to pay the charge for the debate: the standard charge he sets for doing debates any time. If i wanted to debate Dawkins, i would have to shell out the cash. |
Maybe you need to check this show, which I picked up on while I was looking at the one you quoted. It says that when Comfort challenged Richard Dawkins for a debate on the existence of God that Dawkins refused, calling Comfort "Banana Man" and "an Ignorant Fool":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHaSZtf5I1k&feature=fvw |
Tsk, tsk, tsk, deanhills. ^_^; Always check your sources - especially when dealing with someone as dishonest as Comfort.
First, check his Wikipedia entry. Note the names of the organizations he's affiliated with:
| Quote: |
| Ray Comfort (born December 5, 1949) is a New Zealand-born Christian minister and evangelist.[1] Comfort started Living Waters Publications and The Way of the Master in Bellflower, California and has written a number of books. |
Now, look again at that video. No need to watch it all. Just skip right through to the end (about 4:29) and look at the copyright.
Ah, but that's not all. ^_^; Now look at who posted the video.
Two for two. ^_^; It's made by Ray, and shared by Ray. And so, it makes sense to take the claims in that video with a grain of salt.
For the record, that video is quite well known, and is one of the precursors to the Thunderf00t debacle. Here's what happened:
Comfort has been trying to debate "prominent atheists" (his words) for a while now, but few have been interested in taking him on (because he's an idiot). He has sent taunting requests to several of them - Dawkins included - but they just don't care. (Frankly, i couldn't even be arsed, myself. Unless Comfort was going to feed me, i wouldn't bother.) To Dawkins he said that he would donate $10,000 to any charity Dawkins named if Dawkins "had the courage to debate him".
Dawkins just rolled his eyes at this, pointing out that $10,000 is less than what he charges for a normal lecture on evolutionary biology - not even a debate!, let alone a debate with religious nutters. But Dawkins said that he would do it for $100,000 - his standard debating fee, except it would be donated to his charitable foundation and not just go into his pocket. Basically, Dawkins said he would debate Comfort... provided Comfort donated $100,000 to the Dawkins foundation.
What's that you say? Comfort didn't mention that in the video? Surprise surprise. ^_^; Yes, Dawkins called him an idiot and a whole host of other things... but who hasn't, right? ^_^... and yes he refused Comfort's debate challenge to come and do it for free... but he did say he would debate Comfort if Comfort paid his standard debating fee.
But wait! There's more!
Comfort then offered Dawkins $20,000, and Dawkins simply said Comfort was $80,000 short and that was that.
Enter Thunderf00t.
Thunderf00t was going to be touring the area where Comfort is, and since Comfort had asked to debate "prominent atheists", Thunderf00t said... why not me?
Now Comfort made Thunderf00t jump through some hoops, but the highlight of it all was that Comfort demanded that Thunderf00t pay $100,000... to the Dawkins foundation... in Comfort's name. ^_^; Thunderf00t said that he wasn't going to fund Comfort's run at Dawkins. Comfort relented, and the rest is history.
So!
The bottom line is that Dawkins isn't going to accept Comfort's challenge to debate (which is what that video is about - it's Comfort trying to provoke Dawkins into debating him for free), but if Comfort pays his fee he will debate Comfort. That video that you linked to is Comfort's poorly disguised, childish attempt to rile Dawkins into accepting his challenge. It didn't work.
If anyone has $100,000 kicking around that they are willing to toss away on a lark, you can always finance Comfort's debate with Dawkins. ^_^;
(Personally, i would rather pay to see Comfort debate Hitchens. ^_^)$100 grand? By the beard of Zeus!!! Had no idea he pulled in that much money...figured most of his lectures were just appearances he made on book tours and such.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| $100 grand? By the beard of Zeus!!! Had no idea he pulled in that much money...figured most of his lectures were just appearances he made on book tours and such. |
(If you want to get technical, he rarely actually charges when he does scholarly appearances... but that is his fee should he choose to actually collect it. From what i've heard, he'll waive the fee if he supports your cause or if he thinks he'll actually enjoy lecturing for you or debating you. He debated Collins for free, after all. But Comfort will just be a chore for him, so he's not waiving the fee in that case.
So, technically, if you want to debate Dawkins, or have him make a presentation at your school, you might get off with paying for his ticket and dinner. ^_^; ) | Indi wrote: |
| Er... i don't think you really have a clue what you're talking about. |
Well then, let's test your hypothesis.
| Indi wrote: |
| The scientific method cannot be used to prove anything. |
Now, let's test your premise. Indi, please define "prove" because you apparently make use of a vastly different meaning than the majority who use the term. Here are two definitions that perfectly fit my usage of the term "prove":
1. To determine the quality of by testing; try out.
"prove." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 02 Aug. 2009. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prove>.
2. to subject to a test, experiment, comparison, analysis, or the like, to determine quality, amount, acceptability, characteristics, etc.: to prove ore.
"prove." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 02 Aug. 2009. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prove>.
According to these entries in two different dictionaries of the English language, the scientific method can be used to "prove" something. Premise disproved.
| Indi wrote: |
| And it certainly can't be used to even consider itself because the scientific method is methodological naturalism... it applies to analyzing nature, not analyzing methodologies. |
Why did you restate what I originally stated? | farmerdave wrote: |
| let me make a profoundly simple point: [b]The Scientific Method can't be proven by the scientific method.[b] |
Did you like the idea so much that you wanted to plagiarize it? I would have gladly granted you free permission to use it - all you had to do was ask. I know that it "certainly can't be used to even consider itself...". That was my point. Thanks for agreeing.
| Indi wrote: |
| To bring up the fact that the scientific method doesn't apply to the scientific method - as if it is a great point against the scientific method - is as lame as saying that the Sieve of Eratosthenes can't find the Sieve of Eratosthenes for you: well, duh, the Sieve of Eratosthenes finds prime numbers, it doesn't find mathematical techniques. But does that make the Sieve of Eratosthenes any less useful? Of course not |
You find the oddest ways to agree. Most people just say, "I agree." You say, "What's the matter, don't you have a brain?" and then proceed to restate a person's point in your own words as if it were original to yourself. Here was my original statement:
| farmerdave wrote: |
| for those to whom the scientific method is the end-all, and who understand my profoundly simple point, you find yourself in a quandary. |
I know this is a lame thing to say. The problem you didn't address is that there are more than a few people in your camp who do sincerely think that if you can't prove something by the scientific method, then the thing can't be known. [If you are hung up over the word "prove", please insert another word which suits you.]
| Indi wrote: |
| That being said, there are several philosophical methods that do lead to the conclusion that the scientific method is the best method for analyzing nature. |
I'm not sure if you have changed your tone from arguer to teacher, but I agree.
| Indi wrote: |
| The scientific method is not the "end-all" to anyone. |
This quite simply is not the case. There are plenty of people who are apparently not as highly evolved as yourself who do believe the scientific method really does provide the answers to every question worth asking (and that if knowledge is obtained through other methods, it is suspect). I know that it is impossible to live like this and so do you, but for the people in "La la la la la la" land (to be sung like the Smurfs), they don't have a clue. They don't think clearly enough to see how self-contradictory a lot of their beliefs are. However, I'm glad you see more clearly than that.
| Indi wrote: |
| It is simply the best tool mankind has ever developed for exploring and understanding nature. It won't help you decide which Beatles song is the best. It won't help you pick winning stocks. It won't help you choose the best menu for a party. All it does it help you to understand nature, and it does it damn well. And that fact is not only evidenced by the amazing success it has had, it is also evidenced by the dozens of ways, philosophically, that you can arrive at the conclusion that the scientific method is the best way to explore nature. |
I agree. So, what's your point?
| Indi wrote: |
| Seriously, man, if you're going to go criticizing the scientific method, at least take the time to get a vague notion of what it is and what it does (and, by extension, what it isn't and what it can't do). |
I've got a better idea. Before you come out swinging, maybe you should read and think about others' posts a little more carefully. Maybe then you won't waste so much time arguing over things we agree on.
For the sake of all further interactions with you, I do commend your interest in philosophy and helping others to do it well.
Respectfully,
David
P.S. Hypothesis tested. Found lacking.Watch this video ("Isaac Newton and Atheism") and many more will follow:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTmvyq_LLCo&feature=PlayList&p=AE2E2A47ACBCAC91&index=0&playnext=1
Warning: if you don't like your atheism challenged, you had better not watch. After all, what would you do should you begin to doubt your doubting? | Indi wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | Bottomline for me is that Richard Dawkins did not want to debate Comfort, perhaps he thought Comfort was not someone he could learn anything from. So maybe you would not want to debate this Comfort character either? |
That's not true, Dawkins never said he wouldn't debate Comfort. He just said that Comfort would have to pay the charge for the debate: the standard charge he sets for doing debates any time. If i wanted to debate Dawkins, i would have to shell out the cash. |
Maybe you need to check this show, which I picked up on while I was looking at the one you quoted. It says that when Comfort challenged Richard Dawkins for a debate on the existence of God that Dawkins refused, calling Comfort "Banana Man" and "an Ignorant Fool":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHaSZtf5I1k&feature=fvw |
Tsk, tsk, tsk, deanhills. ^_^; Always check your sources - especially when dealing with someone as dishonest as Comfort.
First, check his Wikipedia entry. Note the names of the organizations he's affiliated with:
| Quote: | | Ray Comfort (born December 5, 1949) is a New Zealand-born Christian minister and evangelist.[1] Comfort started Living Waters Publications and The Way of the Master in Bellflower, California and has written a number of books. |
Now, look again at that video. No need to watch it all. Just skip right through to the end (about 4:29) and look at the copyright.
Ah, but that's not all. ^_^; Now look at who posted the video.
Two for two. ^_^; It's made by Ray, and shared by Ray. And so, it makes sense to take the claims in that video with a grain of salt.
For the record, that video is quite well known, and is one of the precursors to the Thunderf00t debacle. Here's what happened:
Comfort has been trying to debate "prominent atheists" (his words) for a while now, but few have been interested in taking him on (because he's an idiot). He has sent taunting requests to several of them - Dawkins included - but they just don't care. (Frankly, i couldn't even be arsed, myself. Unless Comfort was going to feed me, i wouldn't bother.) To Dawkins he said that he would donate $10,000 to any charity Dawkins named if Dawkins "had the courage to debate him".
Dawkins just rolled his eyes at this, pointing out that $10,000 is less than what he charges for a normal lecture on evolutionary biology - not even a debate!, let alone a debate with religious nutters. But Dawkins said that he would do it for $100,000 - his standard debating fee, except it would be donated to his charitable foundation and not just go into his pocket. Basically, Dawkins said he would debate Comfort... provided Comfort donated $100,000 to the Dawkins foundation.
What's that you say? Comfort didn't mention that in the video? Surprise surprise. ^_^; Yes, Dawkins called him an idiot and a whole host of other things... but who hasn't, right? ^_^... and yes he refused Comfort's debate challenge to come and do it for free... but he did say he would debate Comfort if Comfort paid his standard debating fee.
But wait! There's more!
Comfort then offered Dawkins $20,000, and Dawkins simply said Comfort was $80,000 short and that was that.
Enter Thunderf00t.
Thunderf00t was going to be touring the area where Comfort is, and since Comfort had asked to debate "prominent atheists", Thunderf00t said... why not me?
Now Comfort made Thunderf00t jump through some hoops, but the highlight of it all was that Comfort demanded that Thunderf00t pay $100,000... to the Dawkins foundation... in Comfort's name. ^_^; Thunderf00t said that he wasn't going to fund Comfort's run at Dawkins. Comfort relented, and the rest is history.
So!
The bottom line is that Dawkins isn't going to accept Comfort's challenge to debate (which is what that video is about - it's Comfort trying to provoke Dawkins into debating him for free), but if Comfort pays his fee he will debate Comfort. That video that you linked to is Comfort's poorly disguised, childish attempt to rile Dawkins into accepting his challenge. It didn't work.
If anyone has $100,000 kicking around that they are willing to toss away on a lark, you can always finance Comfort's debate with Dawkins. ^_^;
(Personally, i would rather pay to see Comfort debate Hitchens. ^_^) |
I really went according to common sense when I made my first comment about Dawkins not wishing to get into a debate with Comfort. I did read that quote as Comfort bias right from the first go, and cannot visualize Dawkins ever wishing to be in a debate with the likes of Comfort. I don't believe in Dawkins' rhetoric about 100,000 fee however. If he thought that Comfort would be a good choice for a debate, he would have debated him for free. If he can dish out money on public buses in the UK, I'm sure if he thought there was something good to be achieved with a debate with Comfort, he would have invited him to come over to England. Dawkins is obviously playing games. Not an outright refusal, just make the stakes high enough to ensure it won't happen, and if it did, to make it into something that would make Dawkins look really good for the trouble of having to be in a debate with the likes of Comfort.
I'm not seeing the point? That didn't challenge anything. I can think of hundreds of things that challenge my beliefs, or lack there of, much more than a 2:30 video. All it stated was that gravity is quite an awesome force.
If you're referring to the quote, big whoop? People say things like that all the time; just because Newton said it (if he really did) doesn't make it any more legitimate. The quote's meaning is backwards anyway. I would also venture to say had Newton been around in recent times, his opinion probably would have changed a bit.
"Isn't it an amazing feat of engineering that we got all the rivers to exactly follow state borders!"
So some smart guy was Christian and didn't like atheism so what's the challenge? Really what are you trying to prove? If he was such a smart guy why didn't he give some evidence for it? The bu chance thing is basically a kind of straw man argument created by modern creationists. Now I come to think of it I doubt he even said that.
As for the discussion between ray and thunderf00t i would say it wasn't a real discussion. More of a talk to see on which points they disagree. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| As for the discussion between ray and thunderf00t i would say it wasn't a real discussion. More of a talk to see on which points they disagree. |
Agreed. This is quite a good description. They were talking and listing, not really deliberating and discussing.I've been a subscriber to Thunderf00t for a couple of years. He has made some really good science videos. I've been looking forward to this debate for a month or so (whenever he announced it). I must admit that I was a little disappointed when I found out that the debate was uploaded literally a couple of hours after I left for a week and a half and had no internet. This "discussion" is not as impressive as I hoped it might be, but will still enjoy watching the rest of it.
| farmerdave wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Er... i don't think you really have a clue what you're talking about. |
Well then, let's test your hypothesis.
| Indi wrote: | | The scientific method cannot be used to prove anything. |
Now, let's test your premise. Indi, please define "prove" because you apparently make use of a vastly different meaning than the majority who use the term. Here are two definitions that perfectly fit my usage of the term "prove":
1. To determine the quality of by testing; try out.
"prove." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 02 Aug. 2009. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prove>.
2. to subject to a test, experiment, comparison, analysis, or the like, to determine quality, amount, acceptability, characteristics, etc.: to prove ore.
"prove." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 02 Aug. 2009. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prove>.
According to these entries in two different dictionaries of the English language, the scientific method can be used to "prove" something. Premise disproved. |
Under normal circumstances, if someone wrote something like that i would think they were just joking around for a laugh. It hurts my head to think that you actually believe you just made an intelligent point.
Ok, this is how you really test something... you test it. ^_^; You don't go consulting random peripheral information, make a strained analogy, then claim QED. The thing you are trying to show is that you can prove something with the scientific method... so why not actually test that thing, and not the quality or accuracy of dictionaries you happen to have on hand?
You think you can use the scientific method to prove something - anything? Then test that theory. Show me something you can prove with the scientific method. i'll wait.
| farmerdave wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | And it certainly can't be used to even consider itself because the scientific method is methodological naturalism... it applies to analyzing nature, not analyzing methodologies. |
Why did you restate what I originally stated? | farmerdave wrote: | | let me make a profoundly simple point: The Scientific Method can't be proven by the scientific method.[b] |
Did you like the idea so much that you wanted to plagiarize it? I would have gladly granted you free permission to use it - all you had to do was ask. I know that it "certainly can't be used to even consider itself...". That was my point. Thanks for agreeing. |
You know, when you try to be clever while lacking the tools to do it properly, you just confuse yourself. Do you think that you only made [b]one claim in your post? Because you didn't. You made several. And i wasn't vague, i was quite clear in my answer to you: i said that of all your claims, that one particular one was correct. It's just everything else you said that's wrong. So no, we don't agree.
Yes, the scientific method cannot be used to prove its own validity. But everything else you concluded from that is wrong. You called it "cheating". It's not. As i tried to explain to you in what is called an
analogy, lots of useful tools are not self-validating. There is nothing wrong with that, and no "quandary" that arises from it. The Sieve of Eratosthenes works for finding primes, and there's no quandary in using it - and no "cheating" - just because the Sieve of Eratosthenes can't verify the Sieve of Eratosthenes. Other tools verify it. Similarly: the scientific method works for understanding nature, and there's no quandary in using it - and no "cheating" - just because the scientific method can't verify the scientific method. Other tools verify it.
| farmerdave wrote: |
| I know this is a lame thing to say. The problem you didn't address is that there are more than a few people in your camp who do sincerely think that if you can't prove something by the scientific method, then the thing can't be known. [If you are hung up over the word "prove", please insert another word which suits you.] |
What is "my camp"? And what do you hope to accomplish by just telling me to pick a word? Communication only works when two parties use the same words with the same meaning. i know what prove means, and i don't have any problems with using it in this context. You're still wrong: the scientific method can prove nothing. In fact, the scientific method works only by disproving things. It can't prove a single thing. At all.
| farmerdave wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | The scientific method is not the "end-all" to anyone. |
This quite simply is not the case. There are plenty of people who are apparently not as highly evolved as yourself who do believe the scientific method really does provide the answers to every question worth asking (and that if knowledge is obtained through other methods, it is suspect). I know that it is impossible to live like this and so do you, but for the people in "La la la la la la" land (to be sung like the Smurfs), they don't have a clue. They don't think clearly enough to see how self-contradictory a lot of their beliefs are. However, I'm glad you see more clearly than that. |
What is the point of discussing stupid people, though? Of course there are people who don't understand the scientific method, and try to apply it to situations that it doesn't apply to. You don't, for example - you believe you can prove things with the scientific method, or that it is somehow flawed because it can't self-validate.
But so what? There are also people who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and that the Moon landings were faked. There are always a few morons who believe wacky things about any topic. But they're usually in the minority, as they are here. You say "so many" people think the scientific method is the "grand prover of all things". i call bullshit. i say you're pointing out a tiny fraction of people and then inflating their numbers. i could do the same - i could say "so many" religious people fly planes into buildings... but it would be a lie, as your claim is.
| farmerdave wrote: |
| P.S. Hypothesis tested. Found lacking. |
^_^; No, really, try a real test: prove something with the scientific method. Show us all how it's done.
| deanhills wrote: |
| I don't believe in Dawkins' rhetoric about 100,000 fee however. If he thought that Comfort would be a good choice for a debate, he would have debated him for free. If he can dish out money on public buses in the UK, I'm sure if he thought there was something good to be achieved with a debate with Comfort, he would have invited him to come over to England. Dawkins is obviously playing games. Not an outright refusal, just make the stakes high enough to ensure it won't happen, and if it did, to make it into something that would make Dawkins look really good for the trouble of having to be in a debate with the likes of Comfort. |
There is no rhetoric involved and no games: Dawkins has been completely open and upfront all the way through - he hasn't been making flame bait videos and false apologies to draw out Comfort, for example.
No, of course Dawkins doesn't want to debate Comfort. He said so quite plainly. But he also said he would do it, if only for lulz.
But for free? Are you kidding? Why should he do it for free? Because Comfort wants it? Because you say so? This is how Dawkins makes his living - this is how he earns the money to spend on bus ads: by doing speaking engagements. He can and does do them for free when he wants to, but he's under no obligation to.
The price he set is his standard engagement fee. He's not setting the price that high to just to flip off Comfort. That's his professional appearance price. You want him to show up, that's what you pay.
Treble Charger charges $200k for an appearance (last i checked, which was a while ago). That's their fee. Do you seriously believe they should show up and perform for you for free or at a reduced cost just because you flame bait them? Get real. They do charity shows at their discretion, sure, but they're under no obligation to do any show unless you pay their standard fee. Why should it be any different for Dawkins?
There are no games here, at least not on Dawkins's part. There is a man who makes his living doing paid speaking engagements, and a moron who can't afford that man but who is trying to bait him to show up for free or at a discount by using childish insults and lame mind games.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| I've been a subscriber to Thunderf00t for a couple of years. He has made some really good science videos. I've been looking forward to this debate for a month or so (whenever he announced it). I must admit that I was a little disappointed when I found out that the debate was uploaded literally a couple of hours after I left for a week and a half and had no internet. This "discussion" is not as impressive as I hoped it might be, but will still enjoy watching the rest of it. |
Thunderf00t picks up in the last two or three parts. He gets bolder and actually stumps Comfort flat at one point. Of course, Comfort just waves it off with "God did it"... but after Thunderf00t's careful laying out of the argument it sounds quite hollow.
In my opinion, Thunderf00t just ran out of time. He let Comfort lead the show from the start, and by the time Thunderf00t got his rhythm, it was wrap time. | Indi wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | I don't believe in Dawkins' rhetoric about 100,000 fee however. If he thought that Comfort would be a good choice for a debate, he would have debated him for free. If he can dish out money on public buses in the UK, I'm sure if he thought there was something good to be achieved with a debate with Comfort, he would have invited him to come over to England. Dawkins is obviously playing games. Not an outright refusal, just make the stakes high enough to ensure it won't happen, and if it did, to make it into something that would make Dawkins look really good for the trouble of having to be in a debate with the likes of Comfort. |
There is no rhetoric involved and no games: Dawkins has been completely open and upfront all the way through - he hasn't been making flame bait videos and false apologies to draw out Comfort, for example.
No, of course Dawkins doesn't want to debate Comfort. He said so quite plainly. But he also said he would do it, if only for lulz.
But for free? Are you kidding? Why should he do it for free? Because Comfort wants it? Because you say so? This is how Dawkins makes his living - this is how he earns the money to spend on bus ads: by doing speaking engagements. He can and does do them for free when he wants to, but he's under no obligation to.
The price he set is his standard engagement fee. He's not setting the price that high to just to flip off Comfort. That's his professional appearance price. You want him to show up, that's what you pay.
Treble Charger charges $200k for an appearance (last i checked, which was a while ago). That's their fee. Do you seriously believe they should show up and perform for you for free or at a reduced cost just because you flame bait them? Get real. They do charity shows at their discretion, sure, but they're under no obligation to do any show unless you pay their standard fee. Why should it be any different for Dawkins?
There are no games here, at least not on Dawkins's part. There is a man who makes his living doing paid speaking engagements, and a moron who can't afford that man but who is trying to bait him to show up for free or at a discount by using childish insults and lame mind games. |
You're turning my words around Indi. I said that if Dawkins thought Comfort was great and if Dawkins wanted to debate him, he would have invited him over to England and debated him. He obviously does not want to debate Comfort, I would not want to debate Comfort either. I'm certain he has special fees for special presentations, but in this particular case he is playing games with it all. I'm certain if Comfort were to come up with the 100,000 Dawkins would raise the barrier just a touch further, just to make a good point of making as big a fool out of Comfort as he can, and if Comfort goes all of the million miles, Dawkins would make sure of getting his mileage out of the discomfort of having to debate Comfort. | Indi wrote: |
Thunderf00t picks up in the last two or three parts. He gets bolder and actually stumps Comfort flat at one point. Of course, Comfort just waves it off with "God did it"... but after Thunderf00t's careful laying out of the argument it sounds quite hollow.
In my opinion, Thunderf00t just ran out of time. He let Comfort lead the show from the start, and by the time Thunderf00t got his rhythm, it was wrap time. |
I agree. Thunderf00t should have been much more aggressive in this discussion. He wasn't nearly as aggressive as he was in his infamous "Why People Laugh at Creationists" videos. He let Comfort talk a little too much (although I am glad that neither of them were interrupting and shouting at each other - I hate it when people debate like that) and he sort of put up with his nonsense instead of aggressively stamping it out.
Farmerdave: You cannot prove anything using the scientific method. You can only disprove. As a matter of fact, the scientific method relies on disproving. Imagine that I let go of a book in front of you. It will most likely fall down because of gravity. Is that proof that gravity exists? No. Because one day a book might fall up. If I ever drop a book and it falls up, then gravity will be disproved and we will have to come up with a new theory. Now this is a very extreme and silly example, but I chose this to make a point. How would you prove something with the scientific method?
Indi: I am also unsure about the whole Comfort/Dawkins situation that you're conversing with Deanhills about. I think I remember reading somewhere that Dawkins said that, money not being an issue, he simply does not want to debate with Comfort because he finds debating with Creationists to be a waste of his time. | Indi wrote: |
| In my opinion, Thunderf00t just ran out of time. He let Comfort lead the show from the start, and by the time Thunderf00t got his rhythm, it was wrap time. |
Yep - having now watched the lot, I concur. Comfort was allowed to set the agenda early on without challenge. By the time Thunderf00t had got into his stride, and was in a position to spring the few traps he had set, it was all over. | deanhills wrote: |
| You're turning my words around Indi. I said that if Dawkins thought Comfort was great and if Dawkins wanted to debate him, he would have invited him over to England and debated him. He obviously does not want to debate Comfort, I would not want to debate Comfort either. I'm certain he has special fees for special presentations, but in this particular case he is playing games with it all. I'm certain if Comfort were to come up with the 100,000 Dawkins would raise the barrier just a touch further, just to make a good point of making as big a fool out of Comfort as he can, and if Comfort goes all of the million miles, Dawkins would make sure of getting his mileage out of the discomfort of having to debate Comfort. |
See, that's just character assassination. First of all, i already said that Dawkins doesn't think Comfort is great and doesn't want to debate him. Dawkins was quite clear about that. However, he said he would do it if Comfort paid for him. There's no conflict there, and no game. i don't want to help my friend move... but i'll show up and help if she feeds me - no conflict, no game (but if anyone wants to claim that i did it because i like her that much, the fact that i was paid with food will make that claim shaky at best).
You say you're certain that Dawkins will raise the price if Comfort meets it... on what grounds? Dawkins has no interest in making a fool out of Comfort - if he wanted to do that then all he'd have to do is accept Comfort's invitation. If Dawkins really didn't want to debate Comfort at all - even if Comfort paid his foundation $100,000 - then all Dawkins would have had to do is ignore Comfort. ^_^; Seriously. Do you really think Dawkins reputation is in jeopardy if he doesn't answer Comfort's challenge? ^_^; He didn't need to make that offer. Why would he do that if he didn't mean it? How the hell would he know whether or not Comfort could pay it? Many religious organizations in the US are worth millions, and fund-raising has never been a big problem for religious groups. Hell, Comfort has ties to Hollywood after all! Don't forget his cohort is Kirk Cameron. No, your claim just makes no sense. If Dawkins really didn't want to debate Comfort all he would have had to do is just say "i don't debate creationists. Period." and that would be the end of it.
No, to me the situation seems quite clear. Dawkins doesn't take Comfort seriously and has no interest in debating him. Comfort is being persistent, so Dawkins saw the chance to get something good out of the situation - a donation for his foundation. If Comfort makes the payment, then Dawkins will set terms for the debate that don't allow Comfort room for foolishness (for example, Dawkins will make sure Comfort doesn't get the chance to stack the audience with supporters only), go and do the debate, and walk away smiling knowing he's got $100,000 for a good cause. If Comfort doesn't make the payment... oh well, no gain no loss.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Indi: I am also unsure about the whole Comfort/Dawkins situation that you're conversing with Deanhills about. I think I remember reading somewhere that Dawkins said that, money not being an issue, he simply does not want to debate with Comfort because he finds debating with Creationists to be a waste of his time. |
Not quite. Dawkins has said that he will not accept invitations to debate creationists... and, as promised, he didn't accept Comfort's invitation (calling Comfort an idiot in the process). Comfort said that meant Dawkins was a coward, Dawkins said not at all... he wouldn't accept an invitation to debate Comfort, but if Comfort would pay his appearance fee he would show up (Dawkins said he might find it amusing).
Or in other words, Dawkins said that he would not be Comfort's guest and neither would Comfort be his... but if Comfort would hire him he'd show up and do his job.
i can't speak for Dawkins, but i would imagine that extends to all creationists. He's not going to come if you invite him (and he certainly won't invite you)... but if you pay the fee to his foundation, why the hell not show up? ^_^; Dawkins is concerned with giving creationists credibility, which he would be doing if he accepted an invitation. But a job is a different story. If anyone says Dawkins took Comfort seriously because he showed up and debated him, Dawkins will say, "No, he paid me to be there. That's the only reason i was there."
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | In my opinion, Thunderf00t just ran out of time. He let Comfort lead the show from the start, and by the time Thunderf00t got his rhythm, it was wrap time. |
Yep - having now watched the lot, I concur. Comfort was allowed to set the agenda early on without challenge. By the time Thunderf00t had got into his stride, and was in a position to spring the few traps he had set, it was all over. |
Yes, most of Thunderf00t's best shots were taken while Comfort was packing up. Oh well. | Indi wrote: |
Not quite. Dawkins has said that he will not accept invitations to debate creationists... and, as promised, he didn't accept Comfort's invitation (calling Comfort an idiot in the process). Comfort said that meant Dawkins was a coward, Dawkins said not at all... he wouldn't accept an invitation to debate Comfort, but if Comfort would pay his appearance fee he would show up (Dawkins said he might find it amusing).
Or in other words, Dawkins said that he would not be Comfort's guest and neither would Comfort be his... but if Comfort would hire him he'd show up and do his job.
i can't speak for Dawkins, but i would imagine that extends to all creationists. He's not going to come if you invite him (and he certainly won't invite you)... but if you pay the fee to his foundation, why the hell not show up? ^_^; Dawkins is concerned with giving creationists credibility, which he would be doing if he accepted an invitation. But a job is a different story. If anyone says Dawkins took Comfort seriously because he showed up and debated him, Dawkins will say, "No, he paid me to be there. That's the only reason i was there." |
Ok... That makes a lot of sense now. Something was missing when I watched a video a month or two ago on youtube where Thunderf00t made the original offer to Comfort and Comfort responded with, "I'll debate you if you give 100,000 dollars to Dawkins under my name." I didn't really understand the point of that but now it makes sense...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECQQbsV9g6U | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | Not quite. Dawkins has said that he will not accept invitations to debate creationists... and, as promised, he didn't accept Comfort's invitation (calling Comfort an idiot in the process). Comfort said that meant Dawkins was a coward, Dawkins said not at all... he wouldn't accept an invitation to debate Comfort, but if Comfort would pay his appearance fee he would show up (Dawkins said he might find it amusing).
Or in other words, Dawkins said that he would not be Comfort's guest and neither would Comfort be his... but if Comfort would hire him he'd show up and do his job.
i can't speak for Dawkins, but i would imagine that extends to all creationists. He's not going to come if you invite him (and he certainly won't invite you)... but if you pay the fee to his foundation, why the hell not show up? ^_^; Dawkins is concerned with giving creationists credibility, which he would be doing if he accepted an invitation. But a job is a different story. If anyone says Dawkins took Comfort seriously because he showed up and debated him, Dawkins will say, "No, he paid me to be there. That's the only reason i was there." |
Ok... That makes a lot of sense now. Something was missing when I watched a video a month or two ago on youtube where Thunderf00t made the original offer to Comfort and Comfort responded with, "I'll debate you if you give 100,000 dollars to Dawkins under my name." I didn't really understand the point of that but now it makes sense...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECQQbsV9g6U |
Yeah, see the machinations in play? ^_^; Dawkins basically said, "If you want to debate me that badly, you will have to make a gesture of support to the cause of reason and science." Comfort doesn't want to make such a gesture, but he does want to debate Dawkins, so he tries to get Thunderf00t to make the gesture. If Thunderf00t had, then Comfort would have been able to say that he never supported the cause of reason and science... the donation in his name was made by someone else. See, if it was just about the money, Comfort would have just asked Thunderf00t for the $80,000 to make up the difference between his last offer, and then he would have made the donation himself. But instead he tried to get Thunderf00t to make the donation in his name so he could say he didn't have anything personally to do with it. Shifty little bastard, eh?
By the way, in that video: THERE were the kind of balls i would have liked to see Thunderf00t show in the actual discussion.I'm not sure why anyone would want to debate Comfort. It's almost like losing your reputation to debate someone of his calibre. Dawkins is right, he is a fool. Comfort's theory about the design of a banana I am most certain must boggle the mind of theists as well. I wish he could just be ignored as he deserves to be.
| Indi wrote: |
Yeah, see the machinations in play? ^_^; Dawkins basically said, "If you want to debate me that badly, you will have to make a gesture of support to the cause of reason and science." Comfort doesn't want to make such a gesture, but he does want to debate Dawkins, so he tries to get Thunderf00t to make the gesture. If Thunderf00t had, then Comfort would have been able to say that he never supported the cause of reason and science... the donation in his name was made by someone else. See, if it was just about the money, Comfort would have just asked Thunderf00t for the $80,000 to make up the difference between his last offer, and then he would have made the donation himself. But instead he tried to get Thunderf00t to make the donation in his name so he could say he didn't have anything personally to do with it. Shifty little bastard, eh?
By the way, in that video: THERE were the kind of balls i would have liked to see Thunderf00t show in the actual discussion. |
Ahhh... What a clever little bastard. People often give Creationists (mostly YEC) a bad wrap for being dumbasses, yet they're usually the ones that come up with these clever shady schemes. Maybe if they put that effort towards something useful (like studying and research), they might do something great. Hell, I've always argued that Kent Hovind is one of the greatest speakers in his field. Now I've found out that Ray Comfort can come up with these schemes... (Of course I still think he's an idiot - that's an unavoidable thought if you read part of one of his books like I did).
