Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:53:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5898 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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?
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 appeared to
clear up; therefore sleeping with the window open ameliorates tuberculosis
The first is based on evidence and repeated verification; the second is
based on "gut feeling" and anecdotal impression. Granted, these are sort of
caricatured examples, but you asked for utterly basic...
> Ah, and others would say Creationism, on the basis that Evolution doesn't
> satisfactorily explain it for them.
But why? Because it makes them feel better? Great! But that certainly
doesn't make it science, which is the issue we're addressing.
> 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?
The logical action would be to wait for more data. Electrocution, I
believe, refers to death by electricity, but I suppose you're referring only
to a nasty jolt. And do you still get food even when you get zapped?
Anyway, I'm not particularly good with statistics, but it seems to me that
you might as well assume your chances of a zap are at least 50%; they might
be only 5%, but how would you know? Logically, you would have to weigh the
pain you suffer with each jolt against the benefit of receiving food and
make your decision accordingly.
> > 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.
David Hume, after a lengthy examination, declared that some creator is
just barely possible, but that "creator" is just barely enough to get things
started. If we're talking about God Almighty, the chances, based on Hume's
calculus (which I've read but can't reproduce here) deteriorates almost to zero.
I would say that the evidence--not "testimony" or "revelation" for
Creationism is so astonishingly inferior to the evidence for evolution that
there's little use, at this point, of even tentatively considering
Creationism a science. If I'm wrong, someone please present the evidence
that I've failed to consider.
> My objection seems to be that you think yours is the
> *only* logical recourse.
Not the *only,* but certainly the *best* explanation to date. That's not
a moral judgment on science as opposed to faith; it's an addressing of which
provides the better (ie more consistent with repeated observation)
explanation of reality.
> > 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.
For anyone reading on the sidelines, I hasten to add that the fossil
record *does* provide samples of medium-necked giraffes (though I
understand, Dave, that you're just using that as an example).
Anyway, you've raised another tangential point, but an interesting one.
Many, if not nearly all, of the Creationists I've spoken with eventually
raise the "but then life has no meaning" question. The answer is, frankly,
"too bad." The fact that the truth is unpalatable to someone is irrelevant
to its truth.
> > 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...
Ah. Well, I'm sorry, but that's how it is. I'm not saying "if you can't
run with the big dogs, stay on the porch." But I *am* saying that some
reasoning is inferior to other reasoning, and if that hurts someone's
feelings, then that's the way it is. I've been wrong in this forum
(spectacularly wrong, in fact) on one or two occasions--that's how it goes.
If my reasoning skills are inferior to someone else's, then that gives me
something to work on. I do *not* dig my heels in and squall "everyone
should accept my reasoning because it's my perspective so it's right."
To reuse my analogy; if I'm on the tennis court and Martina smashes a
serve down my throat, I wouldn't say "my tennis playing is just as good as
hers, from a different perspective." That would be petty and childish and
simply out of touch with reality. It may make me feel better, but I'll
still have gotten royally trounced on the court.
> [This debate] 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.
So be it. If someone's ability to be right is superior to someone else's,
why should anyone behave otherwise?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) Really? Now, I'd call them both rational (==logical?) decisions, there's just less support for the 2nd as opposed to the 1st. IE I'd be "less sure" of the 2nd assumption than the 1st. Which is really how I feel about Creationism. It's not that (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
