Comparitive delusions

Mammuthus,Exactly.Mark

I myself have argued that there is no way to PROVE anything at all that is in the past, EXCEPT BY witness evidence. If you have that then you have all the proof that is possible in a great many circumstances, and that implies written testimony. This has come up many times in discussions of the validity of the Bible or any written testimony from the past. Witness evidence IS evidence. And that we have for human ancestry in general if not in particular. We've experienced the changing of the generations and we've read about it. You cannot compare this with ancient history.We have NOTHING for pre-human history. Zilch, nada, zip. There is NO way to test anything from so far back.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-22-2006 12:53 PM

So everyone convicted of a crime where there was no eyewitnesses should be immediately pardoned?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I've said ONLY that conjectures are treated as fact. I haven't meant to imply anything else. I've even said of course the conjectures are based on evidence. But about the distant past I've simply argued that there is no way to TEST any such conjectures no matter HOW reasonable they appear to be. The ancient past is simply not replicable or testable, and scenarios about what supposedly happened millions of years ago should never be presented as if they were fact. I'm sure this is so. My objection, however, is the presentation of ancient scenarios that are purely conjectural, as if they were fact, and I believe my examples are clear examples of that. Not tested. The best you can get is what appears very reasonable from the evidence that you built the conjecture on in the first place. Evidence in the present. The past is not repeatable and not testable. See above. They can be compared and that is how you arrive at your conjecture.But what I was saying CAN'T be compared is the present with the past. No matter how reasonable your conjecture appears to be based on your present-tense knowledge, it can't be final, and shouldn't be spoken of as final, because there is no way to independently test the ancient past to see if your conjecture is correct.And yes, it is my belief in the Flood that makes this matter to me, of course. What you call a seascape from the ancient past may be a marker of the receding of the flood. You may have what you consider to be good reasons to believe it isn't, but all that is conjecture on your part, and it is not right to obscure the evidence by insisting that it is an ocean shore from millions of years ago when that is only a conjecture based on the presuppositions of Old Earth geology.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-22-2006 01:18 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 03-22-2006 01:19 PM

It looks like you have dropped 'wild speculation' now, if so I guess that is progress.In a mathematical sense, everything science does is conjectural - not just theories that involved the distant past. Treating geology/evolution/cosmology etc as something different because of the issue of the past is not a strong argument.In a less formal sense, conjecture is really that which applies to hypotheses. Not only can we come to firm conclusions (supported by the evidence) but we can also test the validity of our assumptions. This is what tests mean. We can't test the past, but we can test that our methods of explaining the past hold water. The classic example is supernova 1987 allowing us to test radiodecaying rates hundreds of thousands of years ago, but geology has a fair amount too. Being able to find oil and predict other formations before they are examined are a good indicator that our ideas about the past are good.But this isn't the fact vs interpretation thread. As you yourself have just admitted, scientists make conclusions based on the evidence... ...whether or not they are correct conclusions, whether or not it is good nomenclature to refer to these conclusions as fact is irrelevant. What is relevant is that using independent lines of evidence to arrive at a conclusion is not delusional, it has proven to have been a very successful method of learning about the world, and putting our knowledge to practical use.On the other hand, believing that animals can talk (or have talked) so well as persuade human beings to do things, heck believing that not only a bush can talk, but that a burning bush can and so on and so forth has more characteristics of delusion because they run counter to everything we have been able to learn about the world on our own, especially when, asked to validate the animals can talk idea, the person in question says "Some guy told me it was true, and I believe what he tells me",
"What guy was that? Surely you have some evidence that he is reliable?"
"Well, he's dead now - he wrote it all in a book thousands of years ago, but I faith that he was both right and speaking literally"Its about comparitive delusions. Objectively speaking if we meet someone who tells us that once upon a time donkeys could talk, he knows it to be true because he read it in a book, and the book swore that everything in the book was real, we'd probably think they were delusional. Especially if the book told us that the British Royal Family were all reptiles/dinosaurs from another planet.Actually we might not. We'd simply call them naive or gullible, but the purpose of this thread is comparing which one is more delusional than the other. I think it is clear which one is the more delusional.

Perhaps it would have helped if I'd used the term "hypothesis" instead of "conjecture" but I really see little difference.If I said "wild speculation" somewhere it was probably a reaction against somebody's dismissive post (I'm guessing) -- I believe "conjecture" has been my term of choice for the most of the topic.Yes we are off topic here. Sort of -- it partially involves the justification for my remarks about ancient scenarios after all. Irrelevant to what? It was my one and only point. And "conclusion" is tendentious. These are hypotheses. They build on various forms of evidence, but they cannot be "conclusive" becasue they cannot be tested independently. Really, this ought to be obvious. We're talking about things you THINK happened millions upon millions of years ago. Don't care HOW good you think your hypothesis/conjecture is, it CAN'T be "fact." There is no way to put a scenario from millions of years ago to "practical use." For what purpose? To keep building such scenarios, that's about it. There is nothing practical about that. There may be some practical SIDE EFFECTS of the processes, of course.There is also no way to arrive at a "conclusion" about a scenario of millions of years ago. Can't be done. Can't be replicated, can't be tested. The BEST you can do is hypotheses. This OUGHT to be obvious.About the Bible's being delusional, no Bible believer simply believes in talking animals or bushes as such, and you misrepresent believers by saying that. These things are miracles, marvelous things you learn about what God has done for particular purposes, and you learn these things only when you believe that God inspired the Book. Yes, what one comes to believe by believing THAT is truly beyond the bounds of ordinary thought and experience, quite amazing things, previously unthinkable things -- because God is outside and above Nature and He proves that to us in His word. We certainly don't believe in such things as normal occurences. All the Biblical miracles were done to demonstrate who God is, and if God be God, what is the problem?This message has been edited by Faith, 03-22-2006 02:33 PM

Connotations is the difference. I am not saying that conclusions are conclusive in the sense you have taken it to mean. As I said, its a nomenclature issue. To me, the things you are calling fact, I call data. The things that I call fact are conclusions inferred from several lines of evidence. Finding oil springs to mind. Indeed, using your definition we can't conclude anything ever. If you carefully read my post you'll realise I never said we can test the past, but we can test the validity of our assumptions about the past. I even gave examples. Technically IRG is misrepresenting you. What caused the serpent to sow dissent amongst humans is irrelevant - it was still talking which goes against everything we have learned about the world on our own. Indeed they unthinkable, outside of experience and ordinary thought. I think that is what IRH was trying to say. It is because of these things that objectively speaking delusion might be a good lable. After all - you speak to someone we both think is deluded and they'll come up with a similar explanation.

If we can determine that an area, millions of years ago, was once a shallow seaway and since we know from studying the rock record that conditions were conducive toward the buildup of reefs and capped by another rock formation, we can reasonably deduce that that area will likely have oil or gas. We can then explore that area for oil using maps prepared by geologists who have studied the "ancient" rock record. Without such knowledge, oil companies and the world would be up shit creek. Hell they would be spending millions or billions of dollars exploring any area they could just in the hope that they might find oil. What kind of sense does that make? You're talking outa your backside, saying that there is no "practical purpose" to the scenario of 'millions and millions' of years It isn't just one line of evidence pointing to a scenario of 'millions of years ago'. There are mountains of evidence, researched by scientists for more than a hundred years, that point to the antiquity of the earth. It is perfectably reasonable for scientists to point to such a large degree of evidence that agree with the theory of the antiquity of the earth and conclude that it has a high degree of validity approaching a fact. The exact age of the earth may be in contention but there is no doubt in science that the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old.

Well I don't put negative connotations to "conjecture" myself. We conjecture all the time. "Hypothesis" is simply a more formal scientific term. Well, if we are still talking about how I originally used the term "conjecture" --which I said was treated as "fact" or in other words as "conclusive, --we are going to be talking at cross purposes here if you have a different definition. Well, ARE we talking about what I was originally talking about or not? I was talking about the SCENARIOS of what the earth was supposedly like millions of years ago -- an ocean shore here, a mountain there, neither of which exist now -- is this "data" to you? I don't care what terms we use, but it would certainly help if we can match them up. So far I can't figure out how you are using yours. Yes it is USED there, as part of the calculations, but I'm not convinced it is NECESSARY to the finding of oil to understand anything about the age of the rocks -- except for the relative age of course. Well that has never been questioned, Modulous. I KNOW the HYPOTHESES or ASSUMPTIONS can be tested IN THE PRESENT so that they are reasonable conjectures about the past based on OE thinking. What I'm objecting to is TREATING THEM AS FACT, and my examples CLEARLY demonstrate that they are. Yes, and you operate on the assumption that what we can learn on our own is the standard. This is the assumption of the Rationalist [although even Reason gets short shrift around here on some topics it seems to me]. This standard is precisely what God's word calls into doubt. If the Bible IS God's word then what He says in it ought to trump ANYTHING that contradicts it. He's the one in charge after all. In fact there are many Biblical warnings against trusting in our own understanding. Deny this is God's word, of course, and that's all you have left to go on, but God's word says it is foolish, and that He has given us revelation that shows the limits and the falseness of our thoughts when they contradict His. Missing the whole point though. By saying this, you are judging GOD, not me.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-22-2006 04:41 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 03-22-2006 04:45 PM

It may be "reasonable" by OE criteria, but it still is not right to treat what can ONLY be a hypothesis/conjecture as a "fact."

Maybe not, but impression others are getting is different. Your context is full of 'unsupported' and 'speculation' and the like. I'm sure you can see how people might imply you were using 'conjecture' in a negative way.Hypothesis is a better term, but its not strong on enough, you need to go one step further - theory. I take conclusive, in the context you are using it to mean 'without doubt'. A conclusion in science is never without doubt though it might be beyond reasonable doubt.

quote:

---

con·clu·sive Audio pronunciation of "conclusive" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-klsv)
adj.

​

Serving to put an end to doubt, question, or uncertainty; decisive.

---

quote:

---

Main Entry: con·clu·sion
Pronunciation: k&n-'kl-zh&n
Function: noun
1 : a judgment or opinion inferred from relevant facts

---

I was using it to mean as defined above, you thought I meant it in the other way. I trust that's cleared up now. %0 Dover, its that we seperate terms. The more we understand about how oil is formed (how long it takes to form, how it forms etc), the more accurate our projections are going to be as where we might find oil. If the age of the earth is much lower (eg 6,000 years) then we know nothing about how oil forms, so we have no way of being able to detect where it might form. I think I might need to repeat my point, because I think you are addressing something else. I'm not saying we can test how limestone forms today and thus we can form conclusions about how it might have happened in the past. I am talking about testing whether or not it is valid to make the jump from present to past. Exactly. So - the question is, how can you accuse others of delusion, when you operate using rules which have no confirmation? I'm not saying it is invalid. I am saying that if we met someone that said 'donkeys are aliens', he was totally convinced of it etc. If we provided with evidence to the contrary (and advise him that the alien hypothesis flies in the face of everything we have learned) he could say point though. By saying this, you are judging GOD, not me.[/qs]I think you missed it Faith. I was judging people that believe some entity out there does the unthininkable, things outside of experience and ordinary thought. I was judging people who believe this because someone told it to them, and they read it in some old manuscripts. When we compare delususions, who is more deluded:1. The Scientist who relies on what the data tells him to try and form explanations and conclusions about the world. He tests the validity of his conclusions, and invites others to test them too. He presents the raw data to any that are interested, and says 'It seems clear that this is the way things are'.2. Someone who ignores the data, or says the data is wrong, because an ancient tribe of desert nomads believed in a god that created the world and life several thousand years ago, and anything that these desert nomads say goes, becuase there were under the direction of this god.Looking at it objectively, surely you can see that the second one looks more likely to be the thought processes of a delusional person. Hell, that person might be right of course - but if I was going to place bets on it, I'd go for number 2 as mr delusional.

Of course you would. But the comparison is ridiculous, Mod. You are imposing your own standard on the Bible believer, right down to your caricature of our belief, which of course leads you to your standard conclusion. But the Bible believer uses a different standard, and by that standard people who deny God are delusional, and science is delusional when it contradicts God. Surely you can at least see the logic of this. Your standard does not apply here. It doesn't matter what you think here.

Faith, That's odd, Faith, because you also say: What repeatable experiments, which by definition excludes eyewitnesses, do you have in mind?You'll have to excuse us, Faith, if it seems to us that you apply the "can't be known in the past" standard only to things you don't want to accept, yet relax that standard when the conclusion doesn't challenge your religious belief.Should all prisoners be pardoned where no eyewitnesses were present, as Jar says? You're in a bit of a consistency pickle, aren't you?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

to Message 78

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

There are ways of proving crimes. I'm not talking about that. Sorry I'm not precise all the time. DNA can prove a crime now. And there are other physical evidences, fingerprints and so on. But before these forensic techniques, you couldn't prove much about a crime either. You would then be stuck with witness evidence. And the farther back you go the more dependent you are on witness evidence, and less and less of all kinds of evidence.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-22-2006 07:54 PM