Shermer debates Dr Dino

[Dr Adequate]

I want to know more about his theory that "time is a constant".

OK then, what's its value? 3:30 last Tuesday? Damn, why is my watch still ticking. Useless piece of junk. The fatal design flaw was putting batteries in it.

* howls *

 

[Dr Adequate]

Doomsday sayers don't necessarily act on what they predict. What did Kent Hovind do on May 4th, 2000? Did he hole up in a bunker somewhere? I don't think he did.

That's the date by which the genocide was to by completed, not the date on which it would be carried out.

In any case, I should add that I have known some people with paranoid schizophrenia, and the mere fact that the Huge Ruthless Murderous Conspiracies which are Out To Get Them have not in fact succeeding in killing them --- or hurting them in any way --- or coming into any sort of contact with them --- does nothing to convince these people that the HRMC is not Out To Get Them. I know, I've tried.

In the same way, the people who publicize and expose the HRMCs never seem at all worried that the HRMC will try to silence them, personally.

So no, I have no problem with the idea that Hovind's genuinely insane. Your objection, after all, is that his actions are not consistent with his avowed beliefs. But this is equally explained by the hypothesis that he's a looney.

 

[Vorticity]

I've seen that debate before. I hate to say it, but in my opinion Hovind actually won that debate in a practical sense, i.e. in the mind of a hypothetical half-interested neutral audience member.

The creationists usually do. It's just a by-product of the (seeming) simplicity of their arguments versus the complexity of the arguments of modern science.

I seem to recall that Shermer has actually admitted that he lost that debate.

 

[tsg]

It's just a by-product of the (seeming) simplicity of their arguments versus the complexity of the arguments of modern science.

Stephen Colbert calls this "truthyness": "It doesn't matter that it isn't true, it's enough that I believe it is."

In other words, it just has to sound true. The actual truthfulness is secondary.

 

[CurtC]

I thougt Hovind "won" as well, which is why I posted what I did up in post #3. He's a slimy, well-practiced con man. He's like Harold Hill in The Music Man, or Lyle Lanley in Marge vs. the Monorail.

 

[Luke T.]

I'm watching the Shermer/Hovind debate right now, and Shermer is totally blowing his ten minute rebuttal. His jokes really suck and he is rambling like a maniac.

 

[Luke T.]

Watching Dr. Dino's rebuttal. Much better prepared. Much, much better prepared. On point.

Shermer was incredibly disorganized.

Hovind wins not because Hovind is right (which he isn't), but because Shermer sucks that badly.

 

[Luke T.]

Kent Hovind (Dr Dino) would be difficult to debate. He can spew out enough crap in five minutes that it would take five hours to explain how he's wrong, but you don't have that luxury in a debate format. And he's very practiced - he's been doing this exact same pitch for many years, and if he gets cornered in one particular area, he can quickly shift to an unrelated area.

Shermer is supposedly "practiced". You wouldn't know it from this video.

And Michael Shermer, as a good skeptic, can sound uncertain.

In this video, Shermer doesn't sound uncertain. He sounds like his mind is somewhere else. Total lack of concentration.

 

[Zep]

So if Shermer loses that debate, that means the Creationists are right and evolution is false? I think not, Olly! As has been pointed out many times, science is not decided by debate but by facts.

I think Shermer's mistake was to actually debate Hovind on Hovind's own topic. Hovind has indeed been blasted out of the water by other debaters, but only when it wasn't a debate with an excluded middle fallacy implicit in the topic - Evolution XOR Creationism.

Hovind's worst failures have come in actually attempting to defend "creationism" as a science, without evolution being allowed to be an available target and sidetrack. The point being that Hovind's sole argument is "Evolution BAD, therefore Creationism GOOD!". But removing the first part of that leaves him without a figurative leg to stand on. He actually has no arguments worth diddly that rationally support creationism as a science in its own right, except biblical exhortation (i.e. preaching). And even in that, any decent theological scholar could pin him for the three-count in a few minutes.

In short, his debating technique is pathetic and shallow, but his speech style is popularist. And I'm sorry to say that popularist but issue-less speeches by shallow people are often accepted as "convincing" by the less educated and believer-prone. In short, he is, at best, a walking advertisment for a non-product, and at worst, a lying con-man and nut.

 

[Red Siegfried]

I've seen that debate before. I hate to say it, but in my opinion Hovind actually won that debate in a practical sense, i.e. in the mind of a hypothetical half-interested neutral audience member.

The creationists usually do. It's just a by-product of the (seeming) simplicity of their arguments versus the complexity of the arguments of modern science.

I seem to recall that Shermer has actually admitted that he lost that debate.

That's why debates are often pointless. Debates don't determine the truth, that's what science does. Debates just determine who someone else thought won the debate.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I thougt Hovind "won" as well, which is why I posted what I did up in post #3. He's a slimy, well-practiced con man. He's like Harold Hill in The Music Man, or Lyle Lanley in Marge vs. the Monorail.

I think most people agree with that- that Hovind won, but not in the usual totally good sense of the word.

IMO Shermer made a slip in his opening remarks by saying skepticism and science are the same.

 

[Bronze Dog]

They are the same. Science sticks with null hypotheses until they can be falsified. Skepticism sticks with null hypotheses until they can be falsified. That's pretty much what defines them.

 

[CFLarsen]

I think most people agree with that- that Hovind won, but not in the usual totally good sense of the word.

IMO Shermer made a slip in his opening remarks by saying skepticism and science are the same.

He said "basically, skepticism and science are the same". And then, went on to describe what skepticism is.

Once again, you are caught quoting selectively to make skeptics look bad.

 

[T'ai Chi]

They are the same. Science sticks with null hypotheses until they can be falsified. Skepticism sticks with null hypotheses until they can be falsified. That's pretty much what defines them.

One can be skeptical about the weather forecast, for example.

That doesn't mean your beliefs about the weather forcast are suddenly scientific.

 

[Zep]

In which case you are "cynical" about the weather forecast, not "skeptical".

Tried a dictionary lately, TC?

 

[Bronze Dog]

That'd be "doubtful", which is not the same thing.

 

[T'ai Chi]

That'd be "doubtful", which is not the same thing.

Guess you'll have to alert dictionary publishers, and people like Hecht who wrote a whole history on skepticism and titled it as a history of "doubt".

If ya didn't like the weather example, how about being skeptical of details about a used car?

In Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan said

The tenets of skepticism do not require an advanced degree, as most successful used-car buyers demonstrate.

Those used-car buyers are doing science, according to you?

 

[Luke T.]

So if Shermer loses that debate, that means the Creationists are right and evolution is false? I think not, Olly! As has been pointed out many times, science is not decided by debate but by facts.

Science is no good if you can't figure out how to explain it to others coherently.

A debate is for educational purposes. Present facts for the listener to decide upon. Present a weak case, the other guy wins, right or wrong, and people walk away believing in his viewpoint. If they already believed in his viewpoint, they walk away with that viewpoint reinforced after seeing the enemy crushed.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Guess you'll have to alert dictionary publishers, and people like Hecht who wrote a whole history on skepticism and titled it as a history of "doubt".

If ya didn't like the weather example, how about being skeptical of details about a used car?

In Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan said



Those used-car buyers are doing science, according to you?

Apparently you don't grasp what I meant.

By "doubting" I mean simply not believing something. Skepticism is a case of doubting something until the evidence comes in. Creationists doubt evolution, despite all the evidence. It's special case versus universally, and/or against the evidence.

In the case of that book I haven't had the opportunity to read, I'm guessing it's being used as in contrast to the lack of doubt in religion, etc.

I recognize words are flexible, but when I talk about skepticism here, I specifically mean the definition I gave earlier. Just like I'm careful with the word "theory" when I'm here.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Skepticism is a case of doubting something until the evidence comes in.

So it is doubting, yes, I agree.

Now, is one doing science while at a used car dealers, as in Sagan's example? Nope.