Subject:
|
Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:34:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1423 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> > > Proof is in the eye of the beholder. *DISPROOF* is far more objective.
> >
> > However, scientific proof is not mathematical proof; a theory is "proven" as
> > long as no subsequent observation contradicts it.
>
> I'll hold off here-- is that what you meant to say about a scientific theory
> being proven? IE that no contradictions "prove" it (and accepting that it is a
> falsifiable theory)
That's right. I know I've mentioned it in previous debates, and I thought I'd
re-mentioned here, but apparently I hadn't.
> I actually really like that
> little number series analogy, because I think it's highly applicable. How many
> numbers do you have to see before you accept the theory of F(n) = F(n-1) + 1?
> How many before you're beyond reasonable doubt?
This dredges up math classes that I haven't had in well over a decade, so
forgive me if my answer isn't rock-solid.
But can't you just add the -1 to the +1 and get 0? If so, then your equation
becomes
F(n) = F(n)
which is the Reflexive Property (much favored by one Ayn Rand, if memory
serves.)
If I've committed a comedically gross mathematical error, please be gentle--I
haven't used this stuff in years, and how many math-geeks out there can recite
whole passages of Beowulf from memory?!? We all have our specialties...
You ask how many numbers I must see before I'm beyond a reasonable doubt. But
it seems to me that your question speaks of a linear approach, by which you say
"keep trying different possibilities until either all possibilities have been
tried or you find one that disproves the equation." It is preferable to address
the underlying logic without miring oneself in an infinite regress of
number-sampling; if the logic can be shown to be proven, then that's that.
Creationists endlessly parade examples of what they think are disproofs of
evolution, each of which to date has been shot down, and yet creationists offer
no (and I mean *no*) evidence in support of creationism. Scientists are able to
examine the claims of creationism and, rather than examining an infinite pool of
evidence, they can demonstrate that the underlying logic of the myth is fatally
flawed.
> The amount of "proof" for
> biblical creationism is very small,
I beg your pardon, but such proof is nonexistent. Circular arguments are not
proof, and testimony that is supported only by itself is not proof.
> I think that the distinction that you're attempting to make here
> [between "to accept" and "to beliefe"] is between faith-based
> and "logic/experiential".
***snip***
> To me, they're both equivalent to something that the subject thinks
> is accurate. The reasons why the subject thinks they're accurate is FAR more
> complex than is able to be encompassed within the scope of metaphysical vs.
> empirical.
>
> But before I delve in further, I should probably make sure that that's the
> distinction you're trying to make.
Unfortunately, that's not quite it. "Accepting" and "believing" aren't at all
equivalent, or even based in the same kind of mental processes.
To me, this distinction is central, and any attempt to equate "acceptance" with
"belief" is ultimately something of a strawman of my position.
A while back Dave K and I discussed the difference between "I don't believe that
God exists" and "I believe that God doesn't exist." Do you accept that these
two statements are not equivalent? The some holds true for me in our current
debate; the two terms are not compatible.
> > > Or that the Earth existed before they did. Further, you can use the sort of
> > > "proof" that I always hate using wherein you compare similar cultures'
> > > beliefs. Different cultures have seperate accounts of the flood? Maybe it's
> > > true!
> >
> > That, likewise, is irrelevant; flood myths really only have currency among
> > river-bound our coastal societies. Regardless, "maybe it's true" is not
> > sufficient justification for including a myth in a science curriculum.
>
> There's that "sufficient" in there again. Can you be more explicit about what's
> "sufficient"?
Good call--I think that's my greatest ongoing weakness here in ot.debate. I use
unintended disclaimers .
A "sufficent justification" in this context should be (IMO) independent,
reproducible, and falsifiable confirmation of the underlying theory.
Creationism lacks at least two of these and is therefore insufficiently
justified for inclusion in science curricula. Evolutionary theory, in contrast,
makes numerous testable predictions, all of which have, to date, been confirmed
independently and repeatedly. Therefore evolutionary theory is sufficiently
justified for inclusion.
> > Be careful! There is no independent and untainted historical confirmation
> > that Jesus existed at all, much less that he performed miracles.
>
> Yep! But it's still pretty accepted (believed?) that Jesus *did* exist. Do you
> personally think that it's true he existed?
Jesus the *man*? Sure, why not? Lots of people have existed over the
millennia, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that someone broadly fitting
the mundane characteristics (including the name) of Jesus probably existed.
But Jesus the Son of God? I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that he
existed.
> How can you spend more than 2 minutes on
> basic creationism? Any links you know of about what the hell they specifically
> want?
Well, that's a big part of the problem. More than 99% of creationist "theory"
is nothing more than trying to point out perceived flaws in evolutionary theory.
If creationism were an actual science, it would make its own predictions
independent of evolution, and these could be tested experimentally.
Creationism, if it's true, is true regardless of evolution, so the fact that
creationists spend so much time plinking away at evolution is very telling.
Although the site is riddled with logical flaws, possibly the best overview of
creationism is found at http://www.answersingenesis.org/
> > > 5) You can present both arguments, ensuring that kids can decide for
> > > themselves on areas of contention.
> >
> > Again, this works only if children are given adequate tools for making such a
> > decision, and currently they are not.
>
> Interesting, cuz I'd say they are.
Wow! You have a good deal more faith in the educational system than I do. I
wasn't formally exposed to critical thought until my sophomore year in college.
As it turns out, I had already tended toward that kind of thinking before the
class, but it was (I think) due more to my personality than to any instruction
I'd received in school.
> Of course, the problem I think lies in
> motivation as well. I think many kids couldn't care less. When they care, they
> make the right decision. When they don't, they'll believe whatever you tell
> them. And there's half my problem. I don't want kids thinking evolution is right
> "because I say so". By presenting a choice, it seems to me more like you're
> forcing them to decide (which I think they'll do correctly) rather than just
> accepting whatever it is you tell them.
Motivation is probably the most important part, I agree. I've had countless
discussions with a coworker about that buffoon known as the Pet Psychic.
Despite numerous and thorough debunkings of that charlatan's trickery, my
coworker still believes it because she wants to believe it. That's her right,
of course, but such willful ignorance is really astonishing to me.
When presenting competing choices, we also need to bear in mind that psychology
plays a major part. How many religions are there that assert that after death
we're all going to suffer for eternity regardless of the life we lived on Earth?
Such unpalatable doctrines would find few willing adherents, and so that
religion would die out (via natural selection, some might say). Some people
find the very thought of evolution so aesthetically objectionable that they will
happily embrace a creationist alternative, no matter how irrational.
> I'm sure I could come up with a
> creationist theory that fit existing evidence, or find an interpretation that
> did, but you'd never buy it, because you'd laugh off the "proof" as negligable
> and the conclusions as ludicrous.
That's part of the problem, too: all kinds of creationist theories fit the
observed evidence to some degree or another, but none of them make testable
predictions, and testability is a necessary component of science. That's why
String Theory isn't yet accepted as a scientific explanation of the universe; we
currently have no way to test its predictions, so it languishes in the realm of
philosophy.
> > If creationism is removed from the science classroom, I doubt that any sort
> > of perceived prohibition would drive the students to a defiant embrace of
> > creationism.
>
> !
> I would. "Say, son, what are you studying?" "Darwin's theory of evolution." "Oh,
> that load of crap? Lemme tell you..." It's not necessarily the children's
> defiant influence to be worried about.
That's an excellent point. I was thinking only of how the students would react,
rather than weighing the impact of pressure from their families/churches/peers.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
90 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
