VulcanLogician

Out of respect for your black hole thread, I would prefer to conduct the debate elsewhere. Sorry for my part in derailing your thread. I'll propose to Enoch that we start a new thread so we can debate the issue there. I'm just gonna make one more post asking for clarification here. EPIC FAIL! You actually posted a definition of the strawman fallacy, apparently without reading it first, and failed to recognize how it applied to your argument. I think you can do better. Some small part of you has to realize how wrong you are on this. But forget about your faulty logic for now... Here's the deal: I want to start a thread for the express purpose of debating THIS with you: Is astronomy a science? Are you down for that? Let me know and I will create the thread, or you can create the thread. I don't really care. I asked you if we could agree that the scientific method does not require manipulation of objects in the experiment/testing phase. You do not agree. FINE. I'll simply have to make that case in my arguments. I ask for one more matter of clarification (all I need is a yes/no answer THEN we can begin the debate). If I demonstrate that astronomy conforms to the scientific method, will that prove to you that astronomy is a science? I want to reiterate: all I need is a yes/no answer right now. I know you have plenty more to say on the matter. There will be time for you to make your case once we begin the debate. So which is it, yes or no? If you need to, go back up and read the question again (it's in bold). Keep in mind, you are not conceding your point by answering "yes"--you are merely providing a possible means by which I might refute your argument--IFF I am able to make my case. Some advice: 1) Listening to the other side of a debate is important. If you really are sure of your own position, you shouldn't be afraid to hear the other side. REAL debate involves listening and response, not just pedantically spouting your own opinions. 2) It demonstrates intellectual cowardice to rely wholly upon ridicule/towering over your opponent. If you want to ridicule me, do it sparingly. Wait for the right moment. 3) I'm not afraid of you in the slightest. You have demonstrated little more than bully tactics and a frail grasp of logic. But I'm not going to dismiss you on this account. Cut and paste all the Latin you want... I know what I'm talking about. Do you? 4) I'm coming into this debate with an open mind. Open mindedness means that I'm willing to consider what you say (nothing more, nothing less). It would demonstrate character and integrity on your part if you adopted this posture, but I'm not holding my breath. I'm ready for whatever you dish out. 5) This is most the most important piece of advice I have: Please, for the love of all that is good and holy, take the thirty or so seconds required to READ THE DEFINITIONS OF LOGICAL FALLACIES before accusing another of commiting one, or copy/pasting the definition into your own posts to defend yourself. Please OMG please! I'm begging! OK. Keep in mind, I don't want to continue ANY MORE debate until I get my yes/no answer from you on this question: If I demonstrate that astronomy conforms to the scientific method, will that prove to you that astronomy is a science? THEN we can debate. (I haven't even presented my argument yet, so there is really nothing for you to respond to). Mock me on other counts, give me a backhanded list of "advice" but DO NOT, continue the debate until we start our new thread. Do you accept my challenge?

Nice job picking an arbitrary definition of science and then claiming your arbitrary definition indicates a misunderstanding on my part. LOL. Here's another arbitrary definition from wikipedia: "Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")[2][3]:58 is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[a]" Ho! Ho! According to this arbitrary definition, science is an "enterprise." An enterprise certainly falls under the category of "entity." Furthermore, an enterprise can indeed thrive. For example: "Our small enterprise of producing widgets struggled at first, but now it's THRIVING." And while I'm coasting on the merits of my arbitrary definition, I might as well point out that the article goes on to name astronomy as a science. I love it when people call me out on my type 1 thinking/logical fallacies. It helps me grow as an intellectual. It helps me more if they correctly point out a fallacy. But even when they are DEAD WRONG and misappropriate, say, the reification fallacy, it is still cause for me to reexamine my statements and figure out exactly why they are wrong. Thus it still benefits me by providing me with an intellectual exercise. So thanks. Why don't I return the favor and point out a logical fallacy of yours? (Only I will try to correctly peg you on your type 1 thinking.) This is a strawman fashioned out of the dryest straw imaginable. Nobody postulates a "whirling spinning ball" without noting laws of motion, forces of gravitation etc that make it possible for celestial objects to behave in such a fashion. By leaving out scientific theories which explain how the "whirling spinning ball" model works (and throwing the word fairytale in for rhetorical effect) you have thereby strawmanned the argument and said nothing of any substance. As I said, I don't wish to debate the flat earth model. A conspiracy theory, by its very nature, is beyond falsifiability. No amount of empirical data can change that. So, no thanks. I will, however, debate you on whether astronomy is a science or not--and I will do so accepting (for purposes of this argument) your assertion that a "science" is not an enterprise, but a methodology. (BTW, in order for us to have a coherent debate, we must agree upon definitions. You can't just proclaim that your definition is the correct one and say that I'm wrong because "you have the real definitions." To this end, I've accepted your definition as a show of good faith.) The only part of your definition I reject is the part about "manipulating" the observed objects. I don't think that manipulation per se is required as part of the scientific method. Wikipedia (my go to source for arbitrary definitions) defines the process as: 1) Formulation of a question 2) Hypothesis 3) Prediction 4) Testing 5) Analysis Can we agree, that a process which involves the above steps conforms to scientific methodology? But before I go to the trouble of making my point, I want to ask: if I demonstrate that astronomy uses the scientific method as described above, will this count as a sufficient refutation of your position that astronomy is not a science? [Insult redacted ] Remember, all I need in response from you is a "yes" or "no" to the question in the above paragraph, and THEN I will proceed with my argument. I learned how to swim at an early age. Granted, I learned in water, but the mechanics of the activity should be the same if I find myself in a vat of liquid bull.

I suppose a "garden variety" YEC might be one who accepts the heliocentric model and spherical earth, yet retains skepticism concerning matters of the age of the universe, plausibility of evolution etc... Out of curiosity, I've looked into the flat earth model, and found its skepticism too rigorous. That's not to say it's a waste of time to challenge the globe earth model. Science cannot thrive unless its assumptions are challenged. It's just not a conversation I'm interested in.

Sorry, I thought he was a garden variety YEC. Thanks for the heads up.

I'm late to the party here, but it's hardly plausible that black holes are fairy tales. They were predicted long before they were observed. While it's true that whatever celestial phenomena that are being called "black holes" may turn out to be something else, it is reasonable to assume that they are what they appear to be. Fairy tales are made up stories. Like Hansel and Gretel. No one says that Hansel and Gretel were real historical figures, do they? No. We experience them wholly through written stories and oral traditions. Black holes are different. Astronomers have made observations of phenomena in the night sky which suggests that they have a tangible existence. BTW, astronomy is science. Galileo used astronomical observations to prove the heliocentric model. Please tell me that you accept that the earth revolves around the sun. I assume you think it does. But in admitting the truth of this, you also have to admit that astronomical observations have much to teach us about the universe. If you think astronomical observations can teach us nothing, then why do you accept that the earth revolves around the sun? Edit: NM. No need to respond there, buddy. I'll just be on my way.