Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:01:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5302 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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
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?
> 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
Ah-- so here's the clutch. Your argument is that your reasoning is superior
to theirs, yet your relative "characters" are equal (necessarily independant
of whatever other character valuations we might be able to make). Hence, you
*are* saying that you're superior-- but only insofar as your ability to
reason, yes? Or perhaps I shouldn't say "ability" so much as the reason
actually used. Regardless, I think this is again the attitude James was
describing. And, admittedly, despite your assurances that your character
valuation of these people is no less, I still get the feeling that you're
insinuating that they are somehow less than you. Basically, it's that you're
insulting their choice in logic, which, may indeed may not be a character
attack, but is easily perceived as such.
> 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!
Great!
> 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."
Ah, and others would say Creationism, on the basis that Evolution doesn't
satisfactorily explain it for them.
Let's assume for a minute that you're trapped in a rat cage with 20 food
dispensers. You take some food from #8. It's fine. You take some food from
#19. You get electrocuted. Is it a correct assumption that any number above
#8 will get you zapped? Maybe. Is it logical? Sure! How about "#19 is going
to get me zapped again"? True? Maybe. Logical? Sure! But as far as asking
*how* logical is that assumption over the 1st assumption? I mean, of course
*I'd* take the 2nd assumption over the 1st given the data at hand, but who
am I to say it's any *more* logical? What if I'm gonna get zapped every
other time? How about only once? What if it's just random? What if the cage
owners are just zapping me when they feel like it? Who's to say which answer
is *more* logical given such little data?
> 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.
Well, wait a second-- the question isn't "Can I convince you that I'm
right?", but merely "Can I convince you that I *might* be right?" But you've
already answered that, I think. Creationism *is* possible in your book, you
just don't prefer it. My objection seems to be that you think yours is the
*only* logical recourse.
> > (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.
Oh, I don't disagree with your statement as it being incorrect-- I just saw
it as unnecessary. It didn't appear to support your point except insofar as
attacking the propents of Creationism.
> Creationism explains nothing; Creationism says "things are as they are
> because some powerful force or being or entity wanted them that way."
Exactly right. And that is a quite a strong consolation to some people. In
comparison, Evolution gives a much lesser sense of purpose. Point stands,
though, just as Creationists are quick to dismiss Evolution because it can't
demonstrate medium-necked giraffes, Evolutionists are quick to dismiss
Creationism because carbon-dating shows that people weren't created within
72 hours (or whatever) of the Earth being created.
> That's you're conclusion; I've applied no judgment to the value of the
> person, other than to that person's reasoning ability.
And that's really what I think James was aiming at...
> 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, [...] does that make
> them "better" people than me? Probably not,
Well, again, we're in an "all things being equal" arena. You're suggesting
that Creationists are lesser than you in the area of reason-- and really
(therefore) in the area of debate. This debate isn't concerned with building
8-wide trains or playing tennis. But it is concerned with being "right". And
as such, I think you're saying that your ability to be "right" is better
than theirs. That's the issue at hand, not your "overall judgement" on a person.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) Rational: After repeated trials eliminating as many external variables as possible, it is apparent that penicillin has a positive medicinal effect on the disease tuberculosis Intuitive: I slept with the window open, and my tuberculosis (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
