Thunderf00t

[TheMaw]

I wasn't exactly sure where to put this, but I figured that since I was acting skeptical, I should put it here.

Anyway I was just wondering about Thunderf00t. What are his credentials? Is he actually a scientist? I know that doesn't really matter if his facts are right, but that brings me to my next and most important point.

How do I know he's right? He uses simple logic to refute certain Creationists so that speaks for itself, but when it comes to biology I'm not much of an expert. He doesn't always provide sources for his claims so I'm just wondering how far I should actually believe them.

Please keep in mind I'm not trying to attack him. I'm just being generally skeptical. I nevertheless think he's a rather brilliant person.

 

[Nashy19]

If you want to check something is accurate clarify or source it yourself. If you don't find anything then ask for help, you know, the obvious stuff.

I'll have a look, all I've found so far is Ray Comfort calling him a genius :lol:
People insist he's an employed scientist in the comments, so maybe he's mentioned it.

 

[lrkun]

Your question has merit, because instead of believing, you question his qualifications.

You should ask him directly in youtube or ask this question in the LOR show.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Good for you.

It doesn't matter what his credentials are, although I'm sure he's got a degree from somewhere or other. Like you said, if his facts are right that's good enough. If you need to check his facts on biology, www.talkorigins.org is a good reference site.

I'm not sure where you'd check his work on physics-related issues, but it isn't a bad thing to check his math. He could very well be wrong on all sorts of specifics, even if we agree with him on the general thrust of one of his videos.

And as far as the "how far you should believe him" question, the best answer I can come up with is that you should invest whatever time you find appropriate to find out for yourself, instead of taking anyone's word for it. I know and accept that we can't know everything on every subject, and we do have to take the word of experts sometimes, but it never hurts to investigate as far as you reasonably can. And just to be safe, I'd suggest that if you're discussing something with other people, stick to the subjects that you can investigate.

 

[Deleted member 1004]

There is that photo of him that appeared in one of his/DPR's videos wearing Doctorate graduation colours (I could be mistaken).

Either way I can't think of any particular video of his where facts have been off-target or incorrect.

 

[AndromedasWake]

I can't reveal any actual personal information obviously, but I can tell you that TF is a scientist, both qualified and working professionally as such.

How can you trust me? I don't know. Apparently I'm a master of sophistry!

 

[Deleted member 619]

How do I know he's right? He uses simple logic to refute certain Creationists so that speaks for itself, but when it comes to biology I'm not much of an expert. He doesn't always provide sources for his claims so I'm just wondering how far I should actually believe them.

The simple answer is that you shouldn't. You can check his claims for yourself. That's the real beauty of science, you see. All claims can be tested. You can research his claims for yourself, and do the mathematics yourself, and draw your own conclusions.

Of course, this can be a very long process, because it does require some understanding. However; this process is very rewarding.

In short, you are not required to ever take anybody's word for anything. Credentials are irrelevant, although they do give some indication of how much time and effort another has dedicated to finding the answers to these questions. Ultimately, many of the greatest scientists in history had no scientific qualifications that would carry weight in the mind of the modern person. Does that mean that their ideas were wrong? Of course not, because they have withstood critical scrutiny. You can apply this critical scrutiny yourself and, in a good education system, this is precisely what you are required to do. You don't learn by rote what others assert, you test their ideas, because that's the only way to properly understand them.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Anyway I was just wondering about Thunderf00t. What are his credentials? Is he actually a scientist? I know that doesn't really matter if his facts are right, but that brings me to my next and most important point.

According to C0nc0rdance, who is himself a virologist, Thunderf00t is a very prolific scientist, publishing several papers a year. Of course, how do I know that Conc0rdance even knows Thunderf00t or has the credentials he claims? How do I know that AndromedasWake is an astrophysics student?

While people live on the internet in relative anonymity, you shouldn't be too concerned with people's credentials so long as their arguments are sound...




Added a link for reference...

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Well it isn't very hard to known what his field of expertise is. I figured that out just by looking at some of his videos and I bet anyone could have done tht by know if they were only paying attention. He is not a "physicist" (as it has been sugested), basic physics knowledge (as well a other fields of expertise) are requiered for any field of expertise (that is why he is still confortable with a topic that would be complicated if he was otherwise a laymen).

 

[TheMaw]

Awesome, thanks for all the answers. I'll certainly look into his more perplexing biological claims when I run into them and see what I find. If anything it will give me a deeper insight into biology.

Also, a bit off topic, but Andromodas, I sent you a PM with a question about one of your videos. Not sure if you read it but it's something really I'm interested in.

 

[Deleted member 619]

What was your question? It isn't always guaranteed that he has time to respond, and he gets a fuck of a lot of messages, for reasons that should be apparent.

 

[TheMaw]

If I recall, in his video, "William Craig-Artful Dodger" AW stated that he'll tackle why the second premise, "The Universe BEGAN to exist" was very weak. I've done some research since then and I can see why it's a weak premise, but I was still interested in what AW had to say.

I understand if he's busy of course.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I can attempt an educated guess at what his response would be.

Firstly, he would say that it hasn't been established that anything, ever, began to exist. Certainly, there is an arrangement of previously existing constituent parts in the case of most of what we observe within our local cosmic expansion.

Secondly, it hasn't been established that the universe began to exist. Again, there was a point at which our local cosmic expansion can be said to have been instantiated, but given a rigorous definition of 'universe' (literally, 'that which is'), any prior state is necessarily part of the universe, and therefore a subset thereof. In short, it hasn't been demonstrated that the universe did indeed begin to exist, in any empirical sense. Indeed, given that rigorous definition (pertaining to which there is a huge amount of historical precedent, which I and others will be happy to elucidate for you), it is not a stretch to assert that universe = existence, which means that any creator deity is necessarily a subset of the universe, meaning that the concept f a creator of the universe is absurd.

It may be that this is only my own argument, or at least a part thereof. In any event, when Craig asserts that 'the universe began to exist', he is commiting the fallacy of bare assertion, and when he states that 'everything began to exist', even granting that anything ever began to exist, he is committing the fallacy of composition. Either way, he's erecting rectal vindaloo, and it can be discounted as fallacious.

This is not the genetic or ad hom fallacy. It isn't that he's a fuckwit, therefore his arguments are shite, it's that his arguments are so shite as to demonstrate him to be a fuckwit (or a liar).

 

[ImprobableJoe]

If I recall, in his video, "William Craig-Artful Dodger" AW stated that he'll tackle why the second premise, "The Universe BEGAN to exist" was very weak. I've done some research since then and I can see why it's a weak premise, but I was still interested in what AW had to say.

I understand if he's busy of course.

Wait... who are you talking about? TF or AW?

If you have specific questions, personalities don't matter, so why not ask here and we'll try to tackle your questions?

 

[TheMaw]

I can attempt an educated guess at what his response would be.

Firstly, he would say that it hasn't been established that anything, ever, began to exist. Certainly, there is an arrangement of previously existing constituent parts in the case of most of what we observe within our local cosmic expansion.

Secondly, it hasn't been established that the universe began to exist. Again, there was a point at which our local cosmic expansion can be said to have been instantiated, but given a rigorous definition of 'universe' (literally, 'that which is'), any prior state is necessarily part of the universe, and therefore a subset thereof. In short, it hasn't been demonstrated that the universe did indeed begin to exist, in any empirical sense. Indeed, given that rigorous definition (pertaining to which there is a huge amount of historical precedent, which I and others will be happy to elucidate for you), it is not a stretch to assert that universe = existence, which means that any creator deity is necessarily a subset of the universe, meaning that the concept f a creator of the universe is absurd.

It may be that this is only my own argument, or at least a part thereof. In any event, when Craig asserts that 'the universe began to exist', he is commiting the fallacy of bare assertion, and when he states that 'everything began to exist', even granting that anything ever began to exist, he is committing the fallacy of composition. Either way, he's erecting rectal vindaloo, and it can be discounted as fallacious.

This is not the genetic or ad hom fallacy. It isn't that he's a fuckwit, therefore his arguments are shite, it's that his arguments are so shite as to demonstrate him to be a fuckwit (or a liar).

Thank you. That's pretty much what the reasoning I had.

Wait... who are you talking about? TF or AW?

If you have specific questions, personalities don't matter, so why not ask here and we'll try to tackle your questions?

In my post above that I had sent a question to Andromedas and I was interested in his answer. It's not about personalities.

 

[lrkun]

Keep asking questions. Do not stop. If you do stop, you'll be a believer and you don't want to base your knowledge on mere belief alone. Asking questions will help you focus on the topics you enjoy, you'll be able to ascertain which issue seems vague or ambigues, and not asking will deem you not a scientist, but akin to creotards. Because asking questions also irritates others, relish in that thought. Because asking questions is the only true way we can utilize observersation and the scientific method. Thus, keep asking, despite the answers you get, keep asking until you're satisfied.