Posted on 06/30/2008 4:41:23 PM PDT by Kevmo
It's frequently more a matter of chronology than nascience.
It’s frequently more a matter of chronology than nascience.
***I like that variant of nascency. Nascience works for me. Nascientism, Nascienschism, chronological nascience, whatever...
How do you reconcile OEC/YEC disputes under that tag? That's not a matter of disagreement over nascience, only chronology.
How do you reconcile OEC/YEC disputes under that tag?
***I don’t see the need to reconcile it with a tag.
That’s not a matter of disagreement over nascience, only chronology.
***I suppose I need to ask for clarification here because I don’t understand what you’re getting at.
Everthing we're dealing with has by all accounts been in existence for at least several thousand years.
I’ve lost track. What was wrong with the original “Scientism” tag?
I’ve lost track. What was wrong with the original “Scientism” tag?
***LOL. I have no problem with the original scientism tag, so if your objection to it was of such low magnitude that you can’t even remember, maybe it’s actually one of the better tags to use.
I really didn’t have any objection to the tag, just the designation of “religion”.
Then I guess it’s a win-win all the way around.
You can use the scientism tag and not think it’s a religion. I can use the same tag and think it’s a nascient religion. An actual scientischismist/naturalist/whateverist would have a ready tag available — as the church lady says, “isn’t that special?” And the real clincher is: whoever wants to have a more polite discussion on crevo issues can use the tag, regardless of how he views it.
Your honor, I rest my case.
It may be polite, but it will still be irrational.
Then whatever consesus we had no longer exists.
I still have issue with the words “believe” or “faith” being used for evolution, or any science for that matter. Nobody should ever believe a scientific theory or have faith in it. They should rationally accept it as the best current explanation or model, or reject it in favor of a scientific theory that does offer the best current explanation or model.
Following from this is my absolute rejection of any religious connotation or treatment of science. Even if a scientific subject could reap benefits from such a system, it is still kind of like living a lie to keep safe.
Now, what exactly does “nascientism” mean, and why do we have to wade through a semantic quagmire or your made-up words?
Now, what exactly does “nascientism” mean, and why do we have to wade through a semantic quagmire or your made-up words?
***For the benefit of lurkers, TLogic and I have been talking about this on another thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2044051/posts?page=36#21
and I said it was more suitable for this particular thread, since this is where the term nascientism was generated.
The benefit of using new terms is that you can add whatever meaning you want to it. It is obvious from the discussion upthread that “Nascience” was a hybrid of Nascent and Scientism that was serendipitously misspelled by Tlogic as Nascience, so I went with it as Nascientism. So, simply proceeding from the definition of scientism as used in this thread as having faith in science, and adding “nascent” to the front of it, it is a term that denotes an emerging faith in science.
I can see where that would be quite advantageous in a debate, particularly if you're the one adding new meanings. I take it the idea of adopting the terms that would produce a consensus was abandoned immediately after it was accepted.
I didn’t abandon it, I simply rested my case. If anyone abandoned it, it was you, who changed the entire basis of discussion right after we arrived at using the scientism tag.
I’m starting to notice a tactic, perhaps a logical tactic, in which freepers nitpick and try to wear down the other freeper with whom they disagree. I think it is a form of antagonism, a pretty crafty one at that.
Basically, if someone who disagrees with me really does want to common terms, I’m all for it. But when the discussion drones on and on, with all kinds of other issues getting dragged in, it’s a sign for me that the person doesn’t really want to reach compromise. It’s like the North VietNamese who were constantly talking about the size of the negotiation table, its orientation with respect to north & south, and all that garbage — then after Nixon bombed the North, they really did want to sit down & negotiate and, lo & behold, all that discussion about table size was discarded. Was it really a concern for them? NO. Was it a stalling tactic? Yes. Do I think your tactics represent a stalling/wearing down tactic? Maybe. The fact that you brought the discussion over here to this thread as I requested is a good sign, that you’re interested in coming to terms. You can see by my behavior on this thread that I’m impatient, so state your concerns & we’ll discuss them. If the discussion bogs down, I’ll proceed with the status quo.
My disagreement over characterizing it as religion, rather than schism was made early on. We appeared to have settled on that being the definition that would produce a consensus and was therefore preferable to calling it a religion. We also appeared to have agreed to the term “Scientism”, but you seem to have changed your mind at that last minute in favor of another term, “nascientism”, that you you could define however you wished.
Not true. In #449 I said “whoever wants to have a more polite discussion on crevo issues can use the tag, regardless of how he views it.” Then you backtracked, even after it appeared we had a win-win on all sides.
So we don't have any consensus on whether it should properly be called a religion or schism, and you will continue to maintain that arguing in support of science versus a conflicting religious belief is evidence that you have a religious belief in science, as evidenced by your own definition of the tag you've applied to the thread.
Do the people you've invited to post to those threads know this?
That’s an interesting summation, but it is inaccurate. I leave it to the lurkers to determine for themselves what is accurate with respect to TLogic’s conclusion. It’s actually easily refuted by just reading post #449, but the context provided by the thread is more accurate reading.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.