Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Atheists & Agnostics

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)

4. Saying that it's "complicated"

Reply to Warren Stupidity (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 27, 2015, 04:43 PM

Nov 2015

to defend science from that sort of claim is just rank silliness and accommodationism. Just have people look around them, anywhere, anytime, and tell them that nothing they see, nothing they use, nothing they depend on, would be possible if science were just a social fiction, if science was no better at helping us understand the world than anything else. It really is that simple.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Spooked What do we learn about science from a controversy in physics? [View all] Warren Stupidity Nov 2015 OP

What a twit skepticscott Nov 2015 #1

That's not what his point is. Warren Stupidity Nov 2015 #2

Saying that it's "complicated" skepticscott Nov 2015 #4

This^ AlbertCat Nov 2015 #5

"A few blackened Serengei mandibles"?? AlbertCat Nov 2015 #6

But he didn't mention evolution at all muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #7

Please tell me you're being sarcastic skepticscott Nov 2015 #8

I'm perfectly serious, because I read the thing, and didn't have a kneejerk muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #9

The "proliferation of hominids" skepticscott Nov 2015 #10

No, the proliferation of hominids is not evolution muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #11

"But it is a special kind of social activity, one where lots of different human traits— AlbertCat Nov 2015 #14

Who said it was 'news'? It's a book review in the New Yorker muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #15

It's a book review in the New Yorker AlbertCat Nov 2015 #17

And you call me 'obtuse'. AlbertCat Nov 2015 #18

I pointed it out because skepticscott had said muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #19

The authors pretends that bullshit, strawman arguments are somehow legitimate skepticscott Nov 2015 #21

Yes, you are being deliberately obtuse skepticscott Nov 2015 #20

You said you were loving this; don't throw a tantrum, when you're tiring of your lesson muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #22

You still can't grasp the difference between talking about evolution skepticscott Nov 2015 #23

Your simple point was wrong. muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #24

The dispute between Bohr and Einstein skepticscott Nov 2015 #25

OK: muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #26

No, obviously he isn't referring to evolution, because he doesn't talk about it. AlbertCat Nov 2015 #12

And the dividing line between species, AlbertCat Nov 2015 #13

And that's the point; you can't work out that dividing line from fossils muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #16

An interesting bit of philosophistry Yorktown Nov 2015 #3

Well...Science is hardly just a "social activity" Duppers Dec 2015 #27

The scientific method can be derived from statistics. Religious belief violates statistics. DetlefK Dec 2015 #28