Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 188:
Line 188: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Oh, snap!
:Now, I suggest you give up arguing with Mr. Schlafly for the moment, and try explaining his ideas back to him. As Covey says, Seek first to understand, then to be understood. You'll never win an argument while your debate partner feels you don't 'get' what he's saying. And the audience will yawn or change the channel. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:Now, I suggest you give up arguing with Mr. Schlafly for the moment, and try explaining his ideas back to him. As Covey says, Seek first to understand, then to be understood. You'll never win an argument while your debate partner feels you don't 'get' what he's saying. And the audience will yawn or change the channel. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
== Oh, snap! ==
I just realized: it's the same thing as the "documentary" dispute at Wikipedia's great global warming hoax (talk page).
One editor refused to let the film be called "a documentary" because '''to him''' that word implied that it was not only non-fiction (i.e., it wasn't a drama like Hamlet) - but that it was TRUE. He was okay with called [[An Inconvenient Truth]] a documentary, though.
Likewise, evolution supporters bristle (foam?) at the idea of equating "a theory" with anything other than '''it is true, we know it is, and stop questioning it you anti-scientific moron''' (or words to that effect).
Yet the word ''theory'' simply means "an explanation". Such explanations can be correct, incorrect, or somewhere in between (i.e., they can be "good enough" or "rules of thumb").
A "scientific theory", perhaps, is one which can be tested and verified (or [[falsification|falsified]]). Which reminds me, when educators teach students about evolution, what sorts of conclusions do they draw from it which (if not found) could prove evolution wrong?
Try this:
*If evolution is true, then we should see an example of natural selection in modern times.
*The [[peppered moth]] is an example of natural selection.
*If it turns out that no natural selection occurred in the case of the peppered moth, then (we are prepared to admit!) evolution is not true.
Do they dare to say this? Of course not. And they won't let any other conclusions be drawn from their hypothesis. Which is why opponents have branded evolution as [[pseudoscience]]. Pseudoscience, as I pointed out at Wikipedia, refuses to follow the 3nd & 4th steps of the four-part [[scientific method]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)