Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 16:01:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5673 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> Isn't accusing someone of using "falacious logic" an insult to their person?
> IE assuming they're a lesser one? I think the assumption you're making is
> that "I would *never* come to that conclusion, but you would, and that
> conclusion is erroneous due to falacious logic. Therefore being one who
> would never do such a thing, I'm more that you [read you're lesser than me]".
Well, don't condemn me for the assumptions *you're* making. Here's a
restatement:
A: Rational reasoning is based on experience and
observation of verifiable evidence
B: Intuitive reasoning is based on feelings and
impressions independent of verifiable evidence
C: Rational reasoning is generally superior to
intuitive reason in most real-world situations.
D: The "value" of a person is independent of the type of
reasoning that person employes
E: I employ, in general, rational reasoning
F: Person X employs, in general, intuitive reasoning
----------------------------------------------
1: My form of reasoning in most real-world situations is
generally superior to the form of reason employed by
Person X
2: That fact has nothing to do with the relative "value"
of my character versus that of Person X
Accusing someone of using falacious logic is equivalent to saying "you're
wrong when you assert that 2 plus 2 equals 5." I apply no value judgment
based solely on that person's use of the falacy.
> Also, I don't think it's falacious logic. Let's suppose (because I love the
> theory) that I, DaveE, am master of the universe. Let's also assume you
> disagree with that assumption. What reasons do you have for disbelieving my
> theory, other than "faith"? I'd say it's fair to say that your argument
> would be something along the lines of (see from above): "I can't imagine,
> after a brief period of speculation, how DaveE could be master of the
> universe, so the theory must be false."
But don't you see--that's the whole point of debate. If the question is
"given the assumption of an infinite, omnipotent deity, is Creationism
possible?" then my answer is yes of course! But if the question is "given
the repeated verification of evolutionary theory and the fundamentally
non-verifiable nature of Creationism, which is the more satisfactory
explanation of speciation?" I would resoundingly answer "evolution."
Your hypothetical example is further undermined by its scope; the
extraordinary nature of your claim (or the claim of Creationists) demands
considerable evidence before I can accept it, even as an assumption, whereas
the claims of evolutionary theory are quite small by comparison.
> (Though I would've omit the 'brief
> period of speculation' bit, because, again, I think your intent in stating
> such was demeaning)
Not really. "Brief period" reasonably applies to the amount of time
people generally spend considering the "complexity" question before
declaring it impossible to have occurred by evolution. Given the many
decades of research that have substantiated evolutionary theory, and have in
fact spoken expressly to this particular question of complexity, anything
less that a slam-dunk of a refutation (itself tested and retested and
verified and reverified) amounts to "a brief period of speculation." I
stand by my statement.
> > In addition, most anti-evolutionists I've argued with eventually say
> > something like "well evolution can explain A, B, C, and D, but not E, so it
> > must be 100% false"
>
> A good point. I agree with your criticism, but I'll also reverse it on you.
> If Creationism can't explain a particular aspect you find in geology/etc,
> wouldn't you be equally keen to dismiss it, despite what Creationism *does*
> explain?
Creationism explains nothing; Creationism says "things are as they are
because some powerful force or being or entity wanted them that way."
That's no more of an explanation than "because I said so."
> > My inclination, when faced with someone who demonstrates such a significant
> > lack of reasoning ability, is to question that person's reasoning on other
> > matters, too.
>
> There it is again. "Lack of reasoning ability" == "lesser person".
That's you're conclusion; I've applied no judgment to the value of the
person, other than to that person's reasoning ability.
But now that I think of it, are you stating something like this:
A: Skills contribute to the value of a person
B: Two people equal in all ways except that Person X has
a skill that Person Y does not
---------------------------------------
1: Person X is of greater value than Person Y
If so, then I'd say okay, you've caught me, but consider the criteria.
John Neal makes better 8-wide trains than I ever will, Martina Hingis plays
tennis better than I ever will, and Vladimir Putin speaks Russian better
than I ever will; does that make them "better" people than me? Probably
not, nor can we determine if I am "better" than any of them, since we have
no objective calculus on which to base "better" and "worse." The sheer
number of variables involved makes the question impossible to resolve based
on those criteria.
> When it comes down to it, it's all faith. Science is faith. You have faith
> that because we *ALL* see Lego bricks that they exist. And it would be kinda
> useless to theorize otherwise, but it's still faith.
> But disregarding that already-labeled-as-existentialist viewpoint, can you
> prove that these people "reject reason" simply because they reject *your*
> reason?
Well, what kind of answer do you want from me, Dave? "My" reason is the
same form of reason employed successfully for centuries to advance our
understanding of the natural world and based on observation, experiment,
repeatability, independent confirmation, and corroborative data.
You're asking, in essence, if their thinking is reason or if it's not.
Frankly, I would say that it is a form reason, but it's based on untestable,
non-verifiable assumptions rather than on testable, verifiable ones. That
basis of thought is, to me, unreasonable by definition, since it's not
founded on anything that can be confirmed.
> > But let's be honest; many Christians (speaking from my own experience, and
> > from here on LUGNET, for example) go out of their way to condemn the so-
> > called ignorant, prideful, arrogant, willful, blindness of people who for
> > some reason don't accept on faith a conclusion based on nothing but
> > someone else's personal revelation and testimony. I know, I know--not *all*
> > Christians are like that, but neither do all proponents of evolution deride
> > those who believe based on faith.
>
> Maybe not all Christians are like that, but aren't you? Aren't you going out
> of your way to condemn Christianity/Creationists/etc for being ignorant,
> prideful, willful, and blind?
Only those Christians/Creationists who cling to beliefs in the face of all
available evidence and logic, and, of them, only those who proselytize or
make money off of their ignorance as if it were holy writ.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) I dunno if I'd go so far as to distinguish these two methods of reasoning as much as you'd like to... Could you give me an utterly basic example of each? (...) Ah-- so here's the clutch. Your argument is that your reasoning is superior to (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) Isn't accusing someone of using "falacious logic" an insult to their person? IE assuming they're a lesser one? I think the assumption you're making is that "I would *never* come to that conclusion, but you would, and that conclusion is (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
