Re: Darwin misquoted on Wikipedia Natural Selection

On Sep 14, 12:41 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 14, 3:58 am, Cory Albrecht <coryalbre...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



backspace wrote, On 2007/09/13 14:23:

There is no person by the name of "evolution". I am not asking some
abstract undefined 'evolution' concept but a human being to explain me
the origin of life. If you as a human can't even begin to explain
where life came from then how do you know that the common descent
hypothesis explains anything. The mechanism that is responsible for

That's a load of manure, and you know it.

What you are suggesting is similar to saying:

Because scientists can't prove how gravity is transmitted
how can they even begin to explain that things will fall
down when you drop them.

I'd really love to know your pragmatics in playing out this "I'm to
dense to understand what everybody has written about it" game. Either
you truly are that stupid and cannot pick up what a term means through
context, or you are deliberately being deceptive. Which would you prefer
I think?

I have posted this probably 10 times now.

More, I think. But you don't seem to understand our responses.

You are committing a logical
fallacy known as *Appeal to Abstract Authority*. For the record
science doesn't accord, say or hypothesize anything - only humans do.

Correct. "Science" is a metaphorical shorthand for saying "the society
of people who work in the field of science, and whose behavior is
considered expert and representative or its accepted practices". Most
of us don't want to say all that every time, so we use a linguistic
shorthand.

There is no such person by the name of science and thus there is no
such thing as "...according to science...",

Sure there is. It is widely accepted language, and almost universally
understood with little effort. Typically, even those folks who
disbelieve mainstream evolutionary theory have no trouble
understanding us.

no it is according
somebody with this person particular pragmatics and aphobetics or
agenda. We all have agendas.

Typically in science the agenda is to understand. Hence, our intent
when discussing meanings of words is to *explain or *define.

What is your agenda?

What is interesting is that Wilkins and
UC will neither confirm nor deny this logical fallacy - only the sound
of silence from them, just watch and see. And Dr.Wilkins is great fan
of exposing logical fallacies, on his blog he probably goes through
over 20 but he dares not touch the Appeal to abstract authority.

I googled "appeal to abstract authority" and got two hits: both of
them are posts by you. Could you reference where somebody else
discusses - preferably defines - this fallacy? Perhaps it normally
goes by another name.

It seems to be verbal shorthand for your saying "I don't understand
puns, metaphors, analogies, literary references, definitions, or folks
who simply discuss subjects in order to learn something." Am I
correct?

Kermit


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Darwin misquoted on Wikipedia Natural Selection
    ... the origin of life. ... science doesn't accord, say or hypothesize anything - only humans do. ... agenda. ... UC will neither confirm nor deny this logical fallacy - only the sound ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwin misquoted on Wikipedia Natural Selection
    ... the origin of life. ... science doesn't accord, say or hypothesize anything - only humans do. ... agenda. ... UC will neither confirm nor deny this logical fallacy - only the sound ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwin misquoted on Wikipedia Natural Selection
    ... the origin of life. ... science doesn't accord, say or hypothesize anything - only humans do. ... agenda. ... UC will neither confirm nor deny this logical fallacy - only the sound ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ethical Relativism (Cultural Differences Argument)
    ... There is some science behind your statement. ... I don't think there is any reason to get nasty, ... >> logical fallacy is still a logical fallacy. ... I get enjoyment from life? ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Advanced ID Theory Smeared With Religion
    ... consideration in the science classroom. ... >*All constituents of a form in order to exist must themselves have ... a hypothetical individuals agenda thus non existent, ... your secular humanist educational system with a clear agenda of wiping the minds of children clean from religion is a straw man. ...
    (talk.origins)