A lot of big words get thrown around on these threads, and one is "ad hominem", so I thought I should look it up to see just exactly what it refers to.
Well, it didn't take long.
This site defines "ad hominem", and credits the chart to Paul Graham.
YHAOS: "It’s been my experience that the arguments of 0bamatrons do not rise above the pyramid’s 4th level (contradiction), and generally sputters and stalls out at attempts to rise above the second (Ad Hominem) level."
Fortunately, that never happens on Free Republic, right? ;-)
YHAOS: "Liberals have taken over Science and use it to demonstrate their “superiority” over Conservatives.
Liberals do not believe anything of value exists beyond backsides.
Why don’t you address your objections to them?"
First, just so we're clear: today's word "science" refers to the classical term, "natural-science", which is a sub-branch of "natural-philosophy" which ranks beside "theology", the "queen of sciences".
This understanding dates back to the time of St. Thomas Aquinas.
So I thought I might help you out by noting that liberals expressing their opinions on religion are not speaking "scientifically".
Don't blame "science" or "Darwinism" for liberal political agendas.
YHAOS: "Has anyone on his side of the issue ever declared that his opinions are simply that, and cannot be represented, in any fashion, as scientifically valid?
Have you? Not under any circumstances, I’ll wager,"
You got me there -- I confess that in all these years I've never read, posted on or sent money to any site other than Free Republic, and why should I?
So I address problems I see here, and one of them is that many posters (including YHAOS?) get confused when they hear of a scientist giving his/her personal opinions on matters religious or philosophical, etc.
They suppose that because a scientist said it, then it must be scientific.
Well, the fact is that religious opinions are not scientific, regardless of who gives them.
YHAOS: "So I’ve heard many times, and that’s fine. Let them, then, call their fellow scientists on their many violations of the cardinal principles of Science.
Instead they remain silent and attack rather the critics of these violations."
Every scientist is entitled to hold and express his/her personal philosophical or religious opinions.
And, so long as they don't claim those opinions are science itself, there's nothing dishonest about it.
In the Dawkin's quote above, he says:
I think Dawkins is expressing his non-scientific opinion, which is obviously wrong and should be dismissed as inappropriate and out of line.
Of course the media loves to lionize such people, but believers need a raincoat to go out in the media-storm anyway.
Dawkins' idea is just one more wind-blown water drop to roll off our backs.
YHAOS: "You mischaracterize my criticisms, and rather clumsily at that, so your invitation to shut up will have to remain unsatisfied."
I'll take that as a sincere denial and rejection of the false impression your words leave, and thank you for it, FRiend.
“that never happens on Free Republic, right? ;-)”
For which I am to blame because . . . ? Or, are you indulging in the typical 3rd grade logic that, “Everyone else is doing it” (pout, sniffle)?
“First, just so we're clear: today's word "science" refers to the classical term . . . ”
Creating sidetracks to send me galloping down. Old naval tactic; when out-gunned make much smoke; great billowing clouds. The term “Science,” as it is modernly applied and understood, did not come into use until the late 17th and early 18th Centuries. Its roots, of course, can be traced back, at least, to the time of Aristotle and Plato. But I will agree with you that Thomas Aquinas is one of the greatest:
“Since therefore falsehood alone is contrary to truth, it is impossible for the truth of faith to be contrary to principles known by natural reason.”
And again,
“. . . no opinion or belief is sent to man from God contrary to natural knowledge.”
. . . . . T. Aquinas, Of God and His Creatures, Book I, Chap. 7
Science, I think, is always an effort to explain 'reality' without reference to a Creator (even by scientists who, after some fashion or another, believe in a Creator), creating a kind of certainty that generates, in turn, a very comforting security (which I must assume is the generating motive behind the effort).
“. . . liberals expressing their opinions on religion are not speaking “scientifically”.”
I think that’s correct. But I also note that they and Scientists, particularly of an Atheist persuasion, misrepresent themselves as speaking authoritatively, not personally. It is to this that I object. And, when Liberals and their science lackeys are called on their deceit, their howls of anger and anguish are a dead giveaway that their distress is directed against those who give prominence to their duplicitous guile, and not to their so obvious intellectual failure.
“Don't blame “science” or “Darwinism” for liberal political agendas.”
Oh, but I do. Not for dreaming up the strategy, but for the passivity with which the Liberal agenda has be allowed to hijack Science. It’s not as though it‘s only in the past year that Liberals have been pirating Science, especially Evolution (Darwinism). It began with Marx 165 years ago (some would argue a much earlier date, but let's go with Marx and 1848), so Scientists have had ample indication of what was in store for them. Their behavior would indicate that many actually welcomed the Liberal agenda’s assault on and occupation of Science for its own purposes.
“I confess that in all these years I've never read, posted on or sent money to any site other than Free Republic, and why should I?”
You shouldn’t. Or, at least you needn’t. However, being an avid reader of FR posts, you must be keenly aware that many posts of glaring Scientific heresy have appeared on FR threads. So my question, Has anyone on his (Dawkins’) side of the issue ever declared that his opinions are simply that, and cannot be represented, in any fashion, as scientific valid? remains unanswered.
“They suppose that because a scientist said it, then it must be scientific.”
Whom is this “they” Pilgrim? If you mean moi, then again you misrepresent my opinion (with malice, I must think). It is scientists like Dawkins who represent their “opinions” (as you choose to call them) as scientific “fact.” I insist the opinions are not scientific facts and you choose to attack me rather than Dawkins.