Recall that you’re supposed to be demonstrating that my comments were irrelevant to the subject at hand. Pointing out that the title of the thread is “
Theory of Evolution” doesn’t demonstrate that a discussion about what scientists mean by
theory of evolution is irrelevant.
The subject according to the person who started the thread was Ida, not simply (or even evidently) whether evolution was true or false. Check the first post. And I addressed that subject. Every thread has a number of “subjects at hand” depending on how the conversation develops. For example, at one point you start talking about the five (six) groups in Genesis 1, that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
Great. Why are you bringing that up? You’re supposed to be demonstrating that my comments about what
theory of evolution meant are irrelevant. Or this just responding for the sake of responding?
This conversation is a rabbit trail of your own making. You made comments in regard to gravity having a known engine. I pointed out that was false, no one knows how gravity works yet. Instead of giving a rebuttal to this, you decided to go ad hominem saying that I wasn’t contributing to the conversation. That’s when you made the ironic comments about debate judge, remember?
And it seems to me like you’re just writing something for the sake of a response. You haven’t kept track of how you got to this point. You made comments about gravity. I responded to comments about gravity. You went ad hominem. I responded to ad hominem.
No, I put forth the definition of theory that scientists use. I can provide reference if you'd like?
This is what you want to assert. But you haven’t given me any reason to accept your assertion. The context was simply that evolution is a theory and because of that can’t be proven. All I did was point out why this won't work, given how scientists use the term "theory."
That's fine. Notice that it's hardly different than what I did: I responded with the statement that what a scientist considered a "theory" didn't merit the statement that the poster made.
But in my case, you want to make a big deal out of that. I wonder why?
Why don't you go ahead and give a demonstration as to how the context requires it to be read in a certain way.
And lets assume, for the sake of argument, that the commenter meant "mere speculation" by theory. Would that make my own response irrelevant? No, in fact my point would still be valid, because nothing I said depended on an assumption that the commenter was using "theory" in one way and not in another.
If you think it did, then demonstrate it.
You're long on assertions, short on argument. You're trying to get by with just make a few quick one liners and not giving anything to back it up.
Again, give some demonstration. Some argument, so I know you're not just thumping your chest.
Socrates never considered himself to be teaching those he questioned. In fact he freely admitted that he didn't know the answers to most of his questions either.
And the socratic method is not exclusively (or even primarily) a teaching technique. It's a debate technique. So your conclusion that I'm trying to be a teacher because I'm asking questions is just another one of your unwarranted assertions.
What is my foregone conclusion?
Is that a socratic question?
And what was your point in all this again? You don't like questions??
So your point is I ask habitual questions?
I'm sorry, what was your point again?
That's not a syllogism. I asked for you to give a demonstration as to how the context favored a particular meaning that is relevant to my point about how scientists use the word theory. I didn't say context is unimportant, so all you've given me is this non-response.
That's not entirely correct and is anachronistic, as I already pointed out. Impetus theory was very common and so was the Aristotelian teleological explanation, by which bodies fell because that's where they belonged.
You can read the brief wikipedia article here:
History of gravitational theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note, "It would not be until Isaac Newton that the force of gravity was given proper scientific treatment and an accurate mathematical expression upon which a correct description of gravity can be deduced."
Noting that a object falls (even that it falls by something called "weight") isn't postulating gravity. That's why there were different theories about *why* objects fell.
If something is invisible, it can't be observed (unless you simply mean you're aware of it). If you have amazing superpowers and can observe invisible things, please describe to all of us what gravity looks like. What color is it?
Knew you'd like it. It's true, for the reason I listed. Dictionaries rarely give the necessary and jointly sufficient conditions to a concept. But that's exactly what persons need when persons are debating whether a thing is this or that or whether it should be called this or that or what it means for a thing to be this or that.
Take for example one dictionary's definition of free will: "1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will. 2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will"
Anyone who is familiar with the free-will debate in philosophy would know these are horrible definitions. And if anyone tried to appeal to these definitions to show that we have free will they'd be wasting everyone's time. Take the first definition: compatibilists say we make choices, and libertarians admit that under compatibilism persons can make choices, but they don't want to admit that compatibilism gives us free will. On the other hand, Derk Pereboom doesn't believe we have free will, but he still says we can make choices and deliberations. Now take the second definition: everyone agrees that one of the necessary conditions to free will is that we be unconstrained by external circumstances, but there is
huge disagreement about whether being free of the divine will (or decree) is necessary to free will. Many persons think that we can be under the divine will or decree and still be free.
So it should be obvious that anyone who simply appeals to this dictionary (thefreedictionary.com) to sort out free will is only going to confuse themselves. It will only make it harder when they have to come to terms with philosophical definitions of free will that try to give the necessary and jointly sufficient conditions to free will.
This isn't to say that dictionaries are useless or should never be appealed to. For the most part, they record common usage of a term. So if you want to know how a word is commonly used it's a good place to go. But sometimes it's just absurd (look up the definition for "choice" and see how redundant and uninformative it is).
So if I were to push you off a building you would yell "Oh, no! I'm gravitying!!"? No… we call that falling. And we explain the falling in terms of the force called gravity.
So your claiming your definition of gravity is fall… So if I trip as I walk out the door I gravity? And you say you can observe this, but all your really observing is the effects of gravity not gravity itself.
Now, if you still want to say I'm redefining your terms, fine. Your use of the terms is absurd. No one views falling as synonymous with gravity and no one views the effect (you observing an object fall) of a thing as synonymous with the cause of a thing (gravity).
As I pointed out to you before, that's because someone claimed evolution was unproveable because it was a theory. Naturally, that will require us to understand what the word "theory" means and how it is used in order to see if it is valid. If someone said "Evolution can't be proven because it is spunkle!" don't you think we would have to understand what a spunkle is to know whether that is a valid claim and what relevance it would have to evolutionists?
I have time.
