New ID-er.... :(
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-01-2017, 06:33 PM (This post was last modified: 15-01-2017 06:52 PM by Peebothuhul.)
New ID-er.... :(
I feel so much dumber having listened to this. Sad

http://joinupdots.com/podcast/entreprene...80+english

So many fallacies... so much wrong....

Facepalm

Frusty

This guy is a sale's man and he's found the market to sprook at. Dodgy

I hope RocketSurgeon76 has time etc to rip the twat a new one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2017, 07:37 PM
RE: New ID-er.... :(
*sigh*

my headphones are on charge right now, so I have to wait to listen. In the meantime, I googled his book. And I read an excerpt. UGH.

Let me say, I know that the most common type of science educated people who are also creationists are engineers. But among engineers, this view is incredibly uncommon. I read ONE DAMN PAGE and he used his expertise as an engineer to say that the universe could not have been the way it is without some form of intelligence. I call bull.

If god was an engineer, he is a shit one.

But what hurts is that creationist engineers have to throw out huge parts of our education in order to support this nonsense. Seriously, I sat in a class with another structural this last semester and the topic of evolution came up in the context of bacteria used in water treatment. He rolled his eyes then made a big deal about how evolution was a myth. I am thankful to report that the others in the class simply rolled their eyes at his outburst. And this is made possible because (letting you in on a secret) once we pass the "weeding out" science courses we generally don't use much of it anymore. So pay two years of lip service to science, then you never have to deal with it again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 03:51 AM (This post was last modified: 07-02-2017 04:06 AM by Glossophile.)
RE: New ID-er.... :(
(15-01-2017 07:37 PM)natachan Wrote:  Let me say, I know that the most common type of science educated people who are also creationists are engineers. But among engineers, this view is incredibly uncommon. I read ONE DAMN PAGE and he used his expertise as an engineer to say that the universe could not have been the way it is without some form of intelligence. I call bull.

I'm beginning to think that this is a general pattern of behavior with engineers. Among my fellow advocates of English spelling reform, there are two engineers. Each of them has his own proposed system of reformed spelling, but they're both severely laden with ideas about language that are completely groundless and contrary to what any linguist will tell you. The trained linguists in the discussion group (including me) have tried countless times to advise them on why they're wrong and actually help them improve their proposals to be more linguistically sound, but they still insist that they're right and we're wrong, and they're certainly not above flaunting their engineering credentials in defense of their ideas. Seriously, the way their stubbornness reminds me of creationists is downright uncanny sometimes!

The trend seems to be for engineers to think their credentials qualify them more generally than they actually do, as if their expertise is such an immense accomplishment that it should somehow extend beyond what they actually studied. My ideal response is to make an analogy. I don't care if you graduated with top marks from law school and have never lost a single case. If I'm about to undergo surgery, for example, I want a physician holding the scalpel, not you! The greatest expertise in the world is useless unless it's also RELEVANT expertise! So why the heck should an engineer's assessment of the cosmos and life origins trump those of, oh, I don't know, an actual COSMOLOGIST or BIOLOGIST?! This engineer's presumption might be excusable if he at least consulted with such pertinent experts, took what they had to say seriously, and learned enough from them to attempt a refutation of their conclusions that wouldn't be laughed off the table if submitted to academic review, but I somehow doubt he did much of that at all. Otherwise, we'd be hearing his Nobel Prize speech by now!

Anyway, in the case of ID, the problem may be particularly bad in an engineer's case, because they're trained to think in terms of problem solving, efficiency, and (dare I say it) design. Out of habit, he may be trying to apply that ingrained set of skills without realizing that it isn't really applicable to the universe or biology. He's thinking of the cosmos and/or the life within it as some kind of project, and that's not really what it is.

The only sacred truth in science is that there are no sacred truths. – Carl Sagan
Sōla vēritās sancta in philosophiā nātūrālī est absentia vēritātum sanctārum.
Ἡ μόνη ἱερᾱ̀ ἀληθείᾱ ἐν φυσικῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ ἐστίν ἡ ἱερῶν ἀληθειῶν σπάνις.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 08:34 AM
RE: New ID-er.... :(
(07-02-2017 03:51 AM)Glossophile Wrote:  
(15-01-2017 07:37 PM)natachan Wrote:  Let me say, I know that the most common type of science educated people who are also creationists are engineers. But among engineers, this view is incredibly uncommon. I read ONE DAMN PAGE and he used his expertise as an engineer to say that the universe could not have been the way it is without some form of intelligence. I call bull.

I'm beginning to think that this is a general pattern of behavior with engineers. Among my fellow advocates of English spelling reform, there are two engineers. Each of them has his own proposed system of reformed spelling, but they're both severely laden with ideas about language that are completely groundless and contrary to what any linguist will tell you. The trained linguists in the discussion group (including me) have tried countless times to advise them on why they're wrong and actually help them improve their proposals to be more linguistically sound, but they still insist that they're right and we're wrong, and they're certainly not above flaunting their engineering credentials in defense of their ideas. Seriously, the way their stubbornness reminds me of creationists is downright uncanny sometimes!

The trend seems to be for engineers to think their credentials qualify them more generally than they actually do, as if their expertise is such an immense accomplishment that it should somehow extend beyond what they actually studied. My ideal response is to make an analogy. I don't care if you graduated with top marks from law school and have never lost a single case. If I'm about to undergo surgery, for example, I want a physician holding the scalpel, not you! The greatest expertise in the world is useless unless it's also RELEVANT expertise! So why the heck should an engineer's assessment of the cosmos and life origins trump those of, oh, I don't know, an actual COSMOLOGIST or BIOLOGIST?! This engineer's presumption might be excusable if he at least consulted with such pertinent experts, took what they had to say seriously, and learned enough from them to attempt a refutation of their conclusions that wouldn't be laughed off the table if submitted to academic review, but I somehow doubt he did much of that at all. Otherwise, we'd be hearing his Nobel Prize speech by now!

Anyway, in the case of ID, the problem may be particularly bad in an engineer's case, because they're trained to think in terms of problem solving, efficiency, and (dare I say it) design. Out of habit, he may be trying to apply that ingrained set of skills without realizing that it isn't really applicable to the universe or biology. He's thinking of the cosmos and/or the life within it as some kind of project, and that's not really what it is.

I think this is a fair assessment. As an engineer, my tendency is toward design and problem solving. I often find myself critiquing and/or attempting to reverse engineer interesting things or processes. One other contributing factor is that engineers apply science to create practical solutions. Most of the time, creating a perfect solution is simply not necessary, and, in fact, may be terribly inefficient and costly. Out of necessity, we totally disregard variables and factors that are not of consequence to the practical solution. I think that leads less self-aware engineers to put too much trust in their ability to make assumptions based on a limited subset of knowledge.

I just wanted to let you know that I love you even though you aren't naked right now. Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TurkeyBurner's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: