Posted on 06/22/2003 5:29:39 PM PDT by Aric2000
Quality of teaching style in no way guarantees quality of material. I have known some brilliant professors who can't for the life of them communicate their ideas. On the other hand, some very good speakers have nothing worth saying.
Ah, but the chance meeting of one who can do both can change your entire life!
Too bad they're as about as rare as real gold mine strikes.
He wasn't "comparing" you to Clinton. He merely used Clinton as an illustration. It may have been an unfortuneate choice for illustrating his point, as you have clearly drawn from it a conclusion that was not intended.
No one here on this thread wishes you ill, or wants to insult you, as far as I can tell .....
And all this time I thought that I was the only object of your cyber admiration. This is going to be a difficult adjustment for me ...
[Sound of one arm hugging.]
Your last sentence is unnecessary and maybe that's why your line of inquiry has me so confused about the point you're trying to make.
The scientific method uses data collection as one of its components. Maybe an example will help: You don't literally buy groceries by driving to the store, but grocery shopping requires driving to the store and said driving, as such, is a part of grocery shopping.
Data collection is a prerequisite for hypothesis testing. Theorizing (as used in science) generates testable hypotheses. Data collection, hypothesis testing and theorizing are all a part of the scientific method.
It would seem that you are particularly concerned about semantics, perhaps so much so that a simple procedure has become unecessarily complicated
I really don't know anything about Hovind or AiG and thus have no comment on them.
However, it does occur to me, especially with regard to spiritual matters, that I've heard stunning spiritual Truth from people who have no credentials at all. For instance, there was a little old lady in church who, speaking of Peter's attempt (and failure) to go out to Jesus who was walking on water said "sinking wasn't his job." To me, it was a profound explanation of faith.
And around here, on various threads, I've learned things from all kinds of people, including some with no established credentials. Likewise, I've hypothesized touching a number of subjects and had robust, wonderful conversations. Seems to me that drawing one’s own conclusions through learning, questioning, research and hypothesizing is a good thing per se.
I apologise for bringing Clinton into the thread. I did not intend to compare you to him. I did state in a number of posts that the public face of someone has nothing to do with the correctness of their ideas, and I stand by that.
I really don't know if Hovind is the most pleasant person in the world, or whether he spends countless hours in charity work. We have been trying to discuss his ideas, not his personality.
I am just a little offended that you choose to ignore the substance of posts and try to make me look like a bad person for pointing that out. that is called passive agression, and it isn't nice at all.
Further, for the record, I'd like to repost what followed my unfortunate colorful remark:
The argument is over how Hovind could have a Ph.D. from an institution that doesn't offer one, and whether the things Hovind says make sense. I haven't seen any evidence for either proposition. We have, however, been threatened with exposure of the lurid past of the people sponsoring AIG. Isn't this the same [kind of] argument?
You have no position on Hovind, but some here have been defending him. I think his defenders should concentrate on defending his ideas.
Now concerning spirituality, if one's spiritual ideas include assertions of fact that are contrary to what others believe to be verifiable facts, then the discussion can concentrate on discrepancies of fact.
Because prejudice clouds discussion, I do not quote Intelligent Design fellows in presenting my views. Instead, I quote scientists offered by the evolutionists.
The material is just as good from either side, but my views will not get a fair hearing if the conversation is distracted.
For the same reason that Darwin's theory is unaffected by the insinuation that he was a Marxist, racist, baby-killing kitten-eater, Hovind's ideas are likewise unaffected by the fact that some believe him to be a beloved, benevolent saint.
While generally thought of as limited to negative attacks, can't both technically be considered an ad hominem fallacy?
That is my point. I was simply making that clarification to your comment in post #158:
Scientists, in the meantime, will be content with gathering data using the scientific method.
Perhaps the term for that would be Argumentum pro hominem?
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.