Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Evolution debate

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Uteunayr [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not necessarily. They can offer a bit of consistency through being an information shortcut. While yes, you should always temper someone's qualifications with critical thinking about what the person says, if a person has a PhD, there is a level of prestige that comes along with that in terms of whether that person knows what they are talking about in relation to that field. It doesn't make them infallible, but I'd rather ask Dr. Lijphart about democratic institutional arrangements than a random individual on the street with no PhD in comparative institutions.

But, I think the essence is that you should always temper qualifications with logic. If a PhD starts saying absolutely fucking idiotic stuff that you can't find anywhere else, and there is no logic to what is said, totally disregard them. In that way, yeah, totally right. The ideas matter.

Certainly qualifications can help in an otherwise low information environment. But a 2+ hour debate is not what I'd consider a low information environment. At that point, I don't care who has what letters behind their name. If they're giving good, verifiable information, that's all that matters.

I mean, Ken Ham pointed to a bunch of people with PhDs when trying to justify his position. It was total appeal to authority bullshit, which is to be expected from a man of religion, which is the ultimate appeal to authority fallacy lol

Also, take it from someone who is working on a PhD and regularly has discussions with plenty of people ranging from undergrad students to multiple PhDs. Nobody ever says anything about what degree a person has when considering their ideas. And when discussing a paper or article or talk, I can't recall a single time where we asked "what qualifications did that person have?" It's all about the ideas. That's one of the things that really sets science and religion apart.

[Uteunayr]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Certainly qualifications can help in an otherwise low information environment. But a 2+ hour debate is not what I'd consider a low information environment. At that point, I don't care who has what letters behind their name. If they're giving good, verifiable information, that's all that matters.

I mean, Ken Ham pointed to a bunch of people with PhDs when trying to justify his position. It was total appeal to authority bullshit, which is to be expected from a man of religion, which is the ultimate appeal to authority fallacy lol

Also, take it from someone who is working on a PhD and regularly has discussions with plenty of people ranging from undergrad students to multiple PhDs. Nobody ever says anything about what degree a person has when considering their ideas. And when discussing a paper or article or talk, I can't recall a single time where we asked "what qualifications did that person have?" It's all about the ideas. That's one of the things that really sets science and religion apart.

Certainly. My aim was more toward the blanket nature of your statement about qualifications. In regard to the debate, you'll find we're in agreement through my previous posts that the qualification doesn't matter, because anyone can debate meaningfully. The purpose of debate is that only the argument is what should matter. What I mean when I say the blanket nature is:

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Qualifications are a tool for confusing people who don't know how to judge the ideas.

If this was qualified as "In a debate, qualifications are...", I could find myself more in agreement. It was merely that with what was written, it was a blanket statement that went far beyond simply for the sake of the debate.

Yeah, appeal to authority type of arguments are a classical logical fallacy, if I remember my logical fallacies correctly. I wish that Bill would have stood up and said "Appeal to authority. Logical fallacy. Your statements are irrelevant. My point.", I would have laughed, and still be laughing today because of it. But he was there to entertain, not to win a scored debate.

Certainly, no one says anything about a degree, I am also working on a PhD. It definitely helps you in publishing, and it does count for something when you can stand up in front of a conference room and say you are Dr.SoAndSo, rather than Mr.SoAndSo. People tend to listen up a good bit more. Whether that's good or bad, meh. It does happen though. I merely refer to that it is useful at times to act as an information shortcut, and the language presented made it sound (which I do not believe was the intent given the statement I quoted) far more rigid and unforgiving than I think was intended.

[Grahm]

I actually was interested in the opening statements cause Ham seemed to be giving actual information, whether right or wrong, instead of just going D BOOK SAID S0. That didn't last long tho and was stupid 2 even watch. BNSG should get credit for just not laughing his ass off.

Also, Billnyescienceguy does have a bachelors in science degree for his engineering shit, so is considered an "Amateur Scientist" so he only works on shit that is interesting to him, instead of being stuck in a certain field. i read the amateur science part in a youtube comment, but it seems logical lol.

and not about the debate, but on the religious side of this, every1 should be agnostic because it's the only logical way to go about it. who the fuck knows.

[Uteunayr]

Originally Posted by Grahm [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I actually was interested in the opening statements cause Ham seemed to be giving actual information, whether right or wrong, instead of just going D BOOK SAID S0. That didn't last long tho and was stupid 2 even watch. BNSG should get credit for just not laughing his ass off.

Also, Billnyescienceguy does have a bachelors in science degree for his engineering shit, so is considered an "Amateur Scientist" so he only works on shit that is interesting to him, instead of being stuck in a certain field. i read the amateur science part in a youtube comment, but it seems logical lol.

and not about the debate, but on the religious side of this, every1 should be agnostic because it's the only logical way to go about it. who the fuck knows.

Just note that although Nye only has a bachelors, he is recognized in the scientific community, as he has taught numerous times at Cornell in the same position a professor or graduate student would.

[r00t]

Hypothesis: The THEORY of evolution is disproven by the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics

1. Namely that everything goes to chaos via entropy, not to complex DNA and sh1t
2. Also disproves the absurd theory that celestial bodies form into nearly perfect spheres which revolve in predictable places at precise times around other spherical celestial bodies

Conclusion: existence and the human race was made by aliens; we are living in a computer simulation

[Uteunayr]

Originally Posted by r00t [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

the THEORY of evolution is disproven by the 2nd LAW of thermodyniamics

namely that everything goes to chaos via entropy, not to complex DNA and sh1t

also disproves the absurd theory that celestial bodies form into nearly perfect spheres which revolve in predictable places at precise times around other spherical celestial bodies

conclusion: human race was made by aliens; we are computer simulation

For as nice of a troll as this is, it isn't subtle enough to let the most annoying part of this stick, the inaccurate use of theory. It bothered me at first, and then I read onwards, and I went "Just an obvious troll". You should try to keep it more subtle to really lure people into it. Really need to walk the line between fucking with people and believable for a truly excellent troll. Other than that, good.

7/10.