Subject:
|
Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Apr 2005 21:04:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1463 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> Additionally, the medium-necked giraffes are well documented, as discussed
> here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html
Curse you and your actual examples! Let's just say "Transition Animal N" for the
sake of argument :)
> 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.
Exactly correct, effectively. IE that any creationist must assume that at SOME
point, your great-great-<insert greats here>-great-grandparents DIDN'T exist,
because the generation after that was the first to appear, and was created
instantly. However, the real distinction is that they're dismissing that there's
any relation between the medium necked giraffes and the long-necked variety
today. In effect, it would be as if they found fossil records of your
great^100-grandfather, and DNA tests on the remains indicated that he was
related to you. Creationists might say that there's no relation between the two
of you, and that the DNA tests 'prooving' that fact are wrong.
> > 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?
>
> 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.
I guess the distinction is that it would make a strong case for me. Let's say we
got the way-back machine. And I look back in time and see that woah!, the garden
of Eden existed, and one day two humans just instantly appear, and they start
talking to the sky, which answers back. Then I see a snake talk to the female,
who eats an apple. Etc. Effectively that the way back machine (produced
scientifically as a mathematical physics model or something) showed that that's
what probably happened.
Evidence of God? No. All it is is evidence that the sky talked, and some chick
ate an apple. And that evolution DIDN'T happen (assuming I threw that into the
hypothetical example above). But man, seeing that would do wonders for my faith
in God! If you showed me that, and I had reason to believe that this way-back
machine WAS actually accurate (I'd question it like crazy after seeing that),
I'd start believing in God pretty quick!
Is it a scientific belief? I suppose not-- it's more along the lines of "logical
conclusion". Here's this biblical story that made these wild claims, and it
turns out that EVERY single thing that I can POSSIBLY verify from that source is
accurate. What are the chances that the rest is accurate? I'd go with "high".
But you're right insofar as the assumption of God being the driving force is
unscientific.
> 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.
Eh, I dunno. I tend to think that we've only gotten to the 2nd step or so in
your example. The more we keep showing proof, the more evolution will be
accepted, because there's only so long that *both* sides are willing to play
that game. Eventually, they'll either give up or refute the fact that your facts
are valid. And if they choose the refutation route, they'll probably end up
looking like fools the more the evidence holds true. They'll end up being fringe
wackos like the cult that believes WWII never happened. But eventually, I think
belief will fade away assuming such progressive evidence is found.
> > 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.
>
> 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.
Ok, that's pretty much what I thought-- Essentially that:
- Accepting an idea means that the idea has empirical evidence to suggest itself
to the subject.
- Believing an idea means that the idea is unempirical in origin, and that the
subject believes it merely because s/he wishes or assumes it to be true.
Effectively, I would disagree insofar as things may be a mixture of both.
Perhaps the best examples being things based on non-definitive, yet empirical
evidence. Like, did Martha Washington love her husband? For the sake of argument
(since I keep picking bad examples), let's say I'm talking about fictional
characters rather than the George & Martha from US History.
Determining what 'love' is isn't an empirical analysis to begin with. Further,
any evidence we have about the couple is historical and effectively hearsay. But
if we find evidence that suggests that she made sacrifices for him, or she wrote
that she loved him, or had reports of friends saying that she loved him, or
knowing the fact that wives normally love their husbands, that's arguably
empirical in nature.
Hence, by the above definitions, I would say that neither pure acceptance nor
pure belief is descriptive enough to warrant calling it either one moreso than
the other.
Further, I would argue that there's other possibilities, like intuition. What if
we found out that, oh, I dunno, Socrates had the idea that nothing could
accellerate faster than light? For Socrates, that idea would be classified as a
belief above, because he didn't have (let's say) any empirical evidence to back
it up. But some 2000+ years later, lo and behold, there's empirical evidence
(and yes, I know that's probably another bad example because there's theories
about faster-than-light particles). But nevertheless, I wouldn't suddenly leap
over to calling it an acceptance, because the idea was rooted in belief.
In essence, although I hate to bring Myers-Briggs back into the discussion
(actually, I admit I don't hate it), there's a componant of our psychology that
*wants* an idea to be true. Myers-Briggs IIRC measures this based on
Thinking/Feeling. IE that some people are more prone to *believing* an idea
(because they want it), and others *accept* truths (because they try to ignore
what they want when deciding).
Actually, I think that's a wonderful correllation-- that your description of
"Accepting" = MB's 'Thinking', and "Believing" = MB's 'Feeling'. My argument
being that while certain ideas are classifiable as both, most ideas (like most
people) fall somewhere inbetween on that axis.
Anyway, with respect to kids learning evolution in class:
- Those who think critically would *accept* evolution, because they would
consider it, its faults, it successes, and accept it based on the evidence at
hand.
- Those who do NOT think critically would *believe* in evolution simply because
that's what the teacher said.
Hence, the same idea can be both believed AND accepted, depending on the person
and the idea.
> > 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.
I would agree, but the point is more that which is *more* logical is a matter of
opinion (unless you can test measurable results). Back a few decades ago they
were trying to get water from wells in the mideast. So they built bigger pumps.
However, bigger pumps worked so well that they dried up the underground
reservoirs faster than they could replenish themselves. System dynamics models
yield all sorts of problems like that. People think that doing something will
help because it seems logical, but realistically, it sometimes makes things
worse via complex counterintuitive bizarrities.
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
|
|
|
|
