D'em damn religious apologists

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
D'em damn religious apologists


Now, plenty of the atheist blogs I've read say that they champion science and the scientific method regardless of where it leads us, so you would think their objections to pro-religious [not necessarily "pro" but something that goes against their negative views]  publications/presentations would address the data, the  logic of the paper/presentation, and have data/logic to back up the objections.


But no, they usually go straight to the ad homs, and claims of the authour being a religious apologist.


This way they don't HAVE to address the data, they can just resort to ad homs. They can say "Well of course this person disagrees with my anecdotal views of religious people, he's just a religious apologist!!"



So now, let me take you through a little lesson on data and the scientific method and bias.



Let's say for example a study comes through that says that candy can help you lose weight and is a good replacement for fruit and veggies.


This would be a rather odd claim, considering the evidence to the contrary. Then you realize that this was released by Nestle company.


Now, I argue that the fact it came from Nestle doesn't make the claim false, the fact that there is no data to support it and data to the contrary makes it false the orgins of the claim are irrelevent.


This is known more broadly as the Genetic fallacy. By explaining the orgins of a claim, you thereby show that it is true or false.


The Genetic fallacy has familar forms such as argument from authority [Dr. so and so says that X medicine helps back pain] or ad hom [Joe is a moron, don't listen to him]



The time when the orgins of a claim come into mind is by explaining WHY somebody would lie or make it up. This only applies AFTER you show that it is false and/or unsupported. for example Nestle's lie could sell more candy.



Let's say for example, that the claim about candy is true, of course Nestle's would advertise it! Why buy spinach when you can buy Smarties*!




So to atheists, if you claim to stand and defend the scientific method, do it and address the data/logic instead of the person.



It is not who is saying it, it is what is being said that is important.



*American readers may not realize that in Canada, Smarties are chocolate in candy shells, where as in the US, it's a hard candy [Known as rockets in Canada]

 

 

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I completely

I completely agree.

......Omg, you have a blog!

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

......Omg, you have a blog!

 

Yeah, I just started it.

 

 

 

I'll mostly be ranting on you guys though 

 

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

*American readers may not realize that in Canada, Smarties are chocolate in candy shells, where as in the US, it's a hard candy [Known as rockets in Canada]

Really? Wow. Do they have M&Ms?

Sorry, but this was the only thing I on which I had any comment to make. > >

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Americahttp://en.wikipedia.or

America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smarties_(Ce_De_Candy)

 

Canada:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smarties

 

 

Also I don't think Americans get Ketchup chips, but I'm not sure

 

 

 

 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Now,

Cpt_pineapple wrote:


Now, plenty of the atheist blogs I've read say that they champion science and the scientific method regardless of where it leads us, so you would think their objections to pro-religious [not necessarily "pro" but something that goes against their negative views]  publications/presentations would address the data, the  logic of the paper/presentation, and have data/logic to back up the objections.

But no, they usually go straight to the ad homs, and claims of the authour being a religious apologist.


This way they don't HAVE to address the data, they can just resort to ad homs. They can say "Well of course this person disagrees with my anecdotal views of religious people, he's just a religious apologist!!"


It might be because the "pro-religious" publications/presentations do not employ reason or the scientific method and they don't follow the path that reason and science will lead, but instead they usually construct a path to their belief. If their conclusions have been refuted several times in the past (for example: therefore god exists or telekinesis exists) why waste time?
 

 

Quote:
So now, let me take you through a little lesson on data and the scientific method and bias.



Let's say for example a study comes through that says that candy can help you lose weight and is a good replacement for fruit and veggies.


This would be a rather odd claim, considering the evidence to the contrary. Then you realize that this was released by Nestle company.


Now, I argue that the fact it came from Nestle doesn't make the claim false, the fact that there is no data to support it and data to the contrary makes it false the orgins of the claim are irrelevent.


This is known more broadly as the Genetic fallacy. By explaining the orgins of a claim, you thereby show that it is true or false.


The Genetic fallacy has familar forms such as argument from authority [Dr. so and so says that X medicine helps back pain] or ad hom [Joe is a moron, don't listen to him]



The time when the orgins of a claim come into mind is by explaining WHY somebody would lie or make it up. This only applies AFTER you show that it is false and/or unsupported. for example Nestle's lie could sell more candy.



Let's say for example, that the claim about candy is true, of course Nestle's would advertise it! Why buy spinach when you can buy Smarties*!




So to atheists, if you claim to stand and defend the scientific method, do it and address the data/logic instead of the person.



It is not who is saying it, it is what is being said that is important.


The origin of testimony—whether first hand, hearsay, or rumor—carries weight in evaluating it. Once a researcher has fudged his data to support his preconceived belief he will never be trusted again.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
I cannot believe they don't

I cannot believe they don't have Smarties.  What a sad world it must be without the red ones to eat last (not that I do; I eat them in order of their amount by colour, in groups which reduce each colour simultaneously to zero that are always all even numbered or all odd numbered -I don't like remainders, but if there are any, I eat them all at once.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
It is not who is saying it, it is what is being said that is important.
Really?  All the time?  Can't it be some of both, Captain?  Not that I don't think people should be addressing arguments, just that from whom those arguments come can also be important.  Consider the difference between hearing some apologist argument from Kirk Cameron as opposed to ...well, anyone else.  I might give anyone else the time of day.  At Kirk Cameron I would level insults.  Incidentally, whether I address his arguments or not does not change their actual merit; it is inane babble either way.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Knowledge of the source of

Knowledge of the source of the argument doesn't in itself affect the merits of the actual arguments, of course, but it can save a lot of time going over old ground if you know that they are unlikely to have any fresh evidence or new and properly reasoned arguments.

If we were obliged to study someone's 'arguments' every time they claimed to have something fresh or solid, despite a very poor track record, it would waste time better spent responding to or studying claims which appear genuinely original or fresh from someone who is likely to be worth listening to, whether from or own previous experience or from general reputation among people we trust.

If a major confectionary company wanted to get my attention about some claim overturning current understanding of the good and bad aspects of their product, I would expect them to spell out a summary of the evidence as clearly as possible up front. If they didn't, one could legitimately ask why not : either it is actually questionable or tenuous at best, or very contrived and maybe even heavily selected/cherry-picked, etc.

So track record and credibility of the source is important in anything but the most straight-forward and readily verified claims.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology