Subject:
|
Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:41:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1587 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > 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?
Essentially, just saying that nature throws this string of numbers at us. Not
sure what it represents. We see the 1st number is 1. We have to wait 500 years
to see what the next number is. During those 500 years, what do we think the
next number will be? Do we have any reason to think it's more likely to be a
small number (1-1000) rather than a ridiculously large number like 8*10^947?
Someone at this stage might posit that they think the series is: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, etc. This series can be expressed mathemattically as:
F(n) = F(n-1) + 1
Basically it just says that F(n) (the nth number in the series) is equal to the
*LAST* number in the series (F(n-1)), plus 1. Or, we could say (coincidentally)
that F(n) = n. (Slightly different only insofar as this "1" that we saw *COULD*
be the 600th number in the series, we don't know)
Anyway, debate rages. A religious cult starts that insists that the series is in
fact 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8... because it was imparted to their leader by God. 216
years after the fact, we make some groundbreaking discovery that proves that the
8th number is NOT 43. Hooray! Does it prove the theory? After all, it DID make a
prediction that the 8th number would be '8', and the theory still holds.
Technically, I would argue it's science. But it's also stupid. It's such a
ridiculous conclusion to make when only knowing 1 number of the sequence.
The question really relates to that "sufficient" thing. How many numbers of the
sequence would you need before you were convinced that the theory were true? And
would you really count "the 8th number is not 43" as predictive proof? I mean,
technically it is, but that's just silly. It's like creationists saying "we
predict you won't find any medium-necked giraffes", and using that as "proof".
Technically, yes, the lack of finding certain intermediary animals can be
construed as "proof", but it's a stretch in my book.
> > 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.
Granted, I have to admit that whole 'plants-before-the-sun' thing disproves
biblical creationism since I don't know how they could hope to interpet that in
any sort of way that coincided with what science has found...
But that aside, where are the medium necked giraffes? Effectively, the "proof"
of creationism is that there AREN'T any "rough drafts" of animals, hence
"proving" that they simply went from NOT existing to suddenly existing. I mean,
suppose that we found moose skeletons from a billion years ago, but found
NOTHING else that old (other than rocks and stuff). That would make for a strong
case that moose just "appeared instantly", and would make a strong case for
creationism, wouldn't it? The evidence is that we've found creatures that have
existed, but haven't found anything that proves that those creatures came about
gradually. Hence, a sudden existence implies sudden creation.
The problem is that you (and I) disagree as to the interpretation of that
evidence. Where's the medium-necked giraffe? Well, we don't have *that*, but we
*do* have evidence that all these *other* sorts of creatures that are kind of
giraffe-like existed LONG before giraffes ever seemed to exist. And before
those, there are these other things that look like they're related to primitive
giraffes. Creationists just disagree that a link is a logical conclusion.
> 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?
Yes insofar as the former means "I may have an opinion that God definitely does
not exist, OR that I don't know if God exists or not, but I do NOT actually
believe that God DOES exist", and the latter means "I believe that God does NOT
exist, and I'm not ambiguous in that opinion."
> The some holds true for me in our current debate; the two terms are not
> compatible.
I still don't see how exactly you're saying there's a difference, short of 'the
reason why I believe/accept'. IE that 'belief' is something that relates more to
intuition or blind faith, whereas 'accepting' has something to do with empirical
firsthand evidence. But it seems like you're saying that's not the dinstinction
you're trying to make.
> > > 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?
So, do you accept that Jesus the man existed? Or do you believe that he existed?
And based on what? How strongly do you hold that opinion?
> > 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.
And that I wouldn't mind them teaching alongside evolution-- IE "what are the
flaws with radioactive carbon dating"? "Why aren't there medium-necked
giraffes?" etc. Cuz those are legitimate scientific concerns.
> 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.
I have to agree, very similarly to pretty much anything physical or historical
that the Bible dictates. More and more (in the past 500 years or so) we're
finding holes in the parts of the Bible that claim anything about the physical
world. But Christians are always clinging to those claims, rather than merely
clinging solely to the moral implications.
> 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.
I dunno, I guess I remember critical thinking being discussed in late
gradeschool, and actually using it in early high school. Maybe earlier. Hard to
say, I suppose. I think a lot of it may have to do with the school system and
the teachers. Perhaps I was just lucky, I dunno.
> 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.
Yep. Again, I think it's all about those personality types. What's a logical
conclusion for you may be a completely different logical conclusion for someone
else. Telling which is "more correct" is realistically impossible. The only way
to say which is better is by seeing which produces more useful results.
> 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.
Yeah, any predictions it would make are untestable by the current abilities of
science. Predicting that we WON'T find certain things isn't useful, and
predicting that if we used a 'way-back-machine' to check, we'd see animals
appearing out of thin air is simply beyond our means. It's technically a
falsifiable theory, but it's largely useless and hence (in my book) not worth
believing, when other, more testable theories exist.
DaveE
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
