Subject:
|
Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Apr 2005 21:56:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1604 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> 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!
The problem with this example, though, is that once we posit the existence of a
WayBack Machine, we have allowed for time traveling marvels in our universe.
What's to prevent some creationist with a WayBack machine of his own from going
back and rigging the scene so that you witness a voice from the air and a
clothing-impaired apple-eater?
Do you see my point? As absurd as my example is, if we accept time-traveling
devices, then we must accept that it is more probable that a second, underhanded
time-traveler exists than an omnipotent, ineffable creator-entity.
So even under the criteria you've established, the WayBack experiment doesn't do
anything to prove creationism. It might be a fun trip, but it doesn't further
the creationist argument.
> > 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.
"We" as in you and I? I'd say that that's correct, sure. But creationists can
and do demand ever increasing numbers of missing links; it's clear that no
number of demonstrated links is ever likely to satisfy them, not even A and
AAAAA...AAAAAAAAAAB.
> - 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?
Do you want my actual answer? I ask because it might sound like equivocating...
> 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.
I went with Actual George and Actual Martha because there's no harm in it IMO;
they're dead, and it's more useful to discuss actual people (who may have loved
each other) than fictional ones (who couldn't actually have loved each other,
except fictitiously)
> 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.
Here's the part that will sound like equivocation, but I don't think it is:
From the evidence we have available to us, we are unable to conclude with any
certainty whether or not Martha Washington loved her husband. The most that we
can conclude, assuming that we have some kind of "I love you George, signed
Martha" love-letter, is that Martha professed/demonstrated apparent love for
him.
We may have no reason to refute it, but we have no strong evidence that she
*actually* did love him. We may therefore choose to believe that she did, or we
may accept that she did, based on what we know of the situation, but we can't
logically conclude that she did.
Unless, of course, we posit some kind of tricorder that can objectively
correlate seratonin levels (or whatever) to "love," and we can take our WayBack
Machine back to the 18th century and scan Martha's brain...
**I moved this bit to separate it from the Washington bit**
> Determining what 'love' is isn't an empirical analysis to begin with.
Sure it is! The trick is that we don't often articulate it to ourselves that
way (that is, pulling daisy petals doesn't count as empirical analysis!)
When attempting to determine if Helga loves you, don't you formulate certain
behaviors that Helga would have to demonstrate in order to "qualify" as loving
you? That's empirical analysis, and it's falsifiable. For example: If Helga
loves me, she'll bake me oatmeal cookies. Sure, you also bolster your
data-review with testimonial evidence and your own preferences, but empirical
analysis is definitely part of it.
I know that this isn't quite your point, but the old "did you love your
father/prove it to me" legerdemain (as seen in Contact) is really nothing more than a red herring. Jodie's response to Matthew should have been "What evidence would you accept as proof?"
> 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.
That's exactly correct! Now, we're back to the problem of whether or not kids
are adequately instructed in critical thought. I'm gratified to hear that your
school made some effort in this regard, but I suspect that a great number of
schools don't (and that doesn't even address the lack of motivation we talked
about).
> Hence, the same idea can be both believed AND accepted, depending on the person
> and the idea.
Sure, I have no problem with that. I'd add that some things can't be
accepted-on-evidence and can only be believed, of which "faith" is probably the
best example. However, since "belief" in that context is irreconcilably
non-verifiable (barring the seratonin tricorder), "belief" should not drive
science curricula.
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
|
|
|
|
