Subject:
|
Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Apr 2005 17:42:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1413 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton 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?
***snip***
> 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?
I think I gave my answer in the post to which you replied:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=26719
In summary, it's entirely possible that no quantity of numbers is sufficient to
prove that the theory is true as long as other potentially disproving numbers
have not been considered. When dealing with infinitely-open-ended sets of
evidence, it is more parsimonious to demonstrate whether the underlying logic
can be confirmed or debunked rather than testing an infinite number of samples.
> 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.
That's tricky, but it's another example of circular reasoning; the question
assumes that present-day animals (including us) represent final drafts of
animals. But that's not correct--we are all "rough drafts" of animals yet to
come.
Additionally, the medium-necked giraffes are well documented, as discussed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html
I suspect that you'll counter that this "evidence" doesn't qualify as evidence
for some people, but they're in a weak logical position. No one alive has ever
seen my great-great-great grandfather, but we have evidence of his existence.
People who dismiss the fossil evidence of medium-necked giraffes would also have
to dismiss the evidenciary record of my great-great-great grandfather's
existence.
> 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?
First of all, that hypothetical example is unfortunately not useful because it
doesn't correspond to reality. We don't have any examples of fully-formed
organisms springing up from nothing.
Secondly, the answer is "Absolutely not!" And that's the "God of the Gaps,"
once again. The sudden unprecedented appearance of a fully-formed moose (or a
fully-developed human skeleton in, say, rocks dating from the Devonian) would go
a long way toward disproving evolution by natural selection. But they would do
nothing to prove creationism via supernatural entity.
> 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.
And, logically, they're wrong. This is called the fallacy of the receding
target (among other names). Here's how it works:
Creationist: Show me the link between A and C
Sane Person: Here it is: B
Creationist: Okay, show me the link between A and B
Sane Person: Here it is: AB
Creationist: Okay, show me the link between A and AB
Sane Person: Here it is: AAB
Creationist: Okay, show me the link between A and AAB
Sane Person: Here it is: AAAB
Creationist: Okay, show me the link between A and AAAB
ad infinitum...
Creationists love this tactic because it makes them feel that they've disproven
evolution simply by making burdonsome demands and wearing out the patience of
their opponent. Even if I could provide direct and complete lineage from myself
all the way back to the first pre-cellular protein blob in the primordial soup,
creationist would still complain that I hadn't proven that I was *really*
descended from all of those organisms.
Here's another reason that creationism isn't science, and it relates to the
concept of "doubt thresholds" that we discussed previously: creationist refuse
to accept *any* evidence that supports evolution, but they happily accept any
creationist explanation, even if that explanation is entirely lacking of
evidence.
> 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.
Maybe this post will clarify my position: http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=26033 Here's the relevant bit:
If a belief is in conflict with a material fact, or if that
belief is supported by no empirical evidence, then the person
who holds that belief is not believing; he’s pretending.
Others may disagree with my view, but that's the position I've been arguing.
I've been reluctant to use the word "pretending" in describing creationism
because of the negative connotation, but I stand by my position in that
September post.
To paraphrase, one "believes" something when that thing contradicts or is not
supported by empirical observation; one "accepts" something when that thing is
consistent with and supported by empirical observation.
> 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?
I accept that it is more likely than not that Jesus the man (as opposed to the
Son of God) did exist, based on the testimonial evidence in support of his
mundane existence. I don't hold that opinion particularly strongly and could be
convinced of an alternative if reasonable evidence were presented in support of
that alternative.
> 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.
I would dispute this, actually. A conclusion is or is not logical regardless of
the person who draws that conclusion. PersonA or PersonB may resist that
conclusion, but that doesn't change whether it's logical or not. To assert
otherwise (as, for instance, to claim that "2 + 2 = 4 for you" but "2 + 2 <> 4
for me") would be to embrace a flaccid iteration of postmodernist gobblydegook.
> > 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.
I'd like to stay on-point, though: the creationism being discussed is the
fringe version of Evangelical Christian theology, rather than some hypothetical
"creationism that doesn't include God." Any creationist myth that includes an
omnipotent (or even just "mightily potent") entity is by default non-falsifiable
under any test that we humans could formulate. Even with our way-back machine
we wouldn't be able to falsify creationism via such an entity.
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
|
|
|
|
