|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
There is a lot of talk about allowing and encouraging the use of critical thinking in education. Critical thinking is based on a few fundamental pricipals.
Definitions Ultimately definitions are what make debate possible:
quote: Standard definitions are available for every word in the language. Usually there are multiple definitions available for a given word, and it is critical for clarity of thought, presentation and debate to delineate the one being used. For the purpose of this topic we will use definition 2 to accomplish definition 1. This is particularly critical when we are discussing a science topic, as the science will often use a technical definition, and if people are not using that same definition in their arguments they are not talking about the science anymore but something else. Daffynitions Creationists have a tendency to use non-standard definitions to make their arguments, and this gets into the issue of logical fallacies (strawman, equivocation, etc) that will be discussed later, but for now we will address the basic validity of such definitions. An example is the definition of transitional fossil on A Critique of the "Evolution Essay" A GREAT DEBATE S1WC and anglagard ONLY S1WC writes: Message 29... I think we forgot one IMPORTANT step,that is defining what we mean when we speak of "transitional fossils". I'll start with mine: What I would consider a transitional fossil, a real one that would mean anything to macroevolution, is a fossil that has evolving parts, like a scale/feather fossil, or bones that are evolving from one kind to another, more complex kind, partially evolving body parts, that look almost deformed, because they aren't complete, etc. This is what would be a real transitional fossil. anglagard hits the nail on the head when he responds:
Message 31 (color mine for emPHAsis)If we are forced to use your definition of transitional fossil, which is closer to chimera than transitional fossil in normal English, then I would say you are most likely correct, there are no transitional fossils. In order to criticize evolution as false, you must use the definitions used by life scientists and geoscientists, not your own made-up definitions. If you use your own definitions concerning terms used in evolution, then all you have done is criticize as false your misunderstanding of evolution, not evolution as commonly understood. We'll call what S1WC presented a 'daffynition' - some statement that does not relate to the terms as used in the science (no matter which science) but some 'daffy' misrepresentation instead (it is also known as a logical fallacy -- the straw man argument). If you are addressing the validity of a science then you use the terms as defined in the science. If you don't use the terms as defined in the science then you are not addressing the science. anglagard goes on to present a fairly standard definition of transitional fossil:
(same msg) Can we use a somewhat neutral definition such as the first hit in Google such as: quote: In effect saying "let's look up the proper definition and use that" but S1WC protests:
Message 31 Sorry, won't do. That first and only hit on Google define for "transitional fossil" is from a biased source, Wikepedia. Wikepedia is completely in favor of evolution, so we cannot use this if I, as a Creationist, am to debate fairly. This is a completely ludicrous position and logically false. Wikipedia is "biased" if anything, to providing the proper usage of terms, and properly gives the definition of transitional fossil as used in evolution: and to use some other usage will not address evolution. This isn't 'bias,' and this is not debating creationist false portrayals of evolution, but addressing the truth of what the science of evolution says. It is either true or not, and if you think it is not true, then (a) show that the definition was false and (2) provide the definition from a credible source that is correct. A similar situation has occurred with murkeywaters in our Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (now open to anyone) regarding the definition of evolution, where he takes issue with my definition, proceeds to give several other examples of the definition of evolution that still show that evolution is about "change in species over time" and then concludes:
Message 8 Finally, even if were to agree that "Science" defines evolution as "change in species over time", that doesn't make it correct or any less misleading and it would still remain a valid point of debate. Perhaps part of the problem is that the definition we should be discussing is for a comprehensive theory of evolution, not simply the mechanism of evolution. That is what will allow us to compare and debate creation theory and evolution theory on an equal basis. Still trying to make it into something it is not, still trying to change the definition from what is used in the science (nor is the "doesn't make it correct or any less misleading" clarified or substantiated with any further discussion - yet). Definition: common usage, clearly set out and easily verified by some credible source or other (dictionary, encyclopedia, etc) Daffynition: not common (daffy) usage, not verified by any credible source, usually false or misleading or just plain irrlevant. Delusions Let me start here with the definition of faith:
quote: The one I want to use here is #2 - faith: belief that is not based on proof. If you have proof of the truth, then it is not faith. If you have invalidation, evidence that proves a belief to be false, then this belief is also not faith, as there is evidence that proves the truth, but something else.
quote: Belief in something in spite of evidence to the contrary is delusion. One can be deluded by others, however when one is confronted with the facts, the evidence, the truth, of the matter and still holds a belief in denial of the {facts\evidence\truth}, then one is psychologically deluded - living in a state of delusion about the reality of the world. Regarding the definition of transitional fossils above, S1WC refuses to accept the true definition of the term as used in the science of evolution and then concludes:
Message 42 Point "Can't get anywhere": Since we couldn't agree upon a definition of "transitional fossils", this point can't be argued properly at the moment. S1WC is deluded that his failure to accept the true scientific definition has any validity and that anything is accomplished by it other than providing evidence of his state of delusion. What is true is that he can't argue the point properly at the moment, anglagard does not have the problem. These are some observed facts:
As an example of this kind of denial, when confronted with the evidence of transitional elements between reptiles and birds that is presented by archaeopteryx, S1WC comments:
Message 43 Like I have said, there are 3 possibilities to this, archaeopteryx could be a real bird, a real reptile, or a fraud, but NOT a transitional. I hold to the fraud part, but I have said it COULD be a real bird or a real reptile. But AIG is not the only source of info out there, I have read 'Darwin's Conspiracy' and have reason to say archaeopteryx is MOST LIKELY a fraud, yet I do not totally ignore that it could be a bird or reptile. Notably missing is a 4th possiblity - one of harsh true reality - that archaeopteryx truly is a transitional (and one of many), and that belief to the contrary is denial of the evidence rather than rational consideration of it: and belief maintained in the face of evidence to the contrary is delusional. Denial does not make the truth go away. Logic Logic is the base of rational thought. The usual form is
Premise {A} This is similar to {A}+{B}={C}.Premise {B} Conclusion {C} If premise {A} is true, and if premise {B} is true, and if conclusion {C} follows from {A} and {B}, then it is true, but if either premise is false or the construction is invalid then the conclusion will be invalid. Common logical fallacies employ one or more invalid formations.
quote: There are several valid sources for the definitions of various logical fallacies:http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm http://usabig.com/autonomist/fallacies.html even Formal fallacy - Wikipedia some common ones are Straw Man
quote: Argument from Ignorance or Incredulity
quote: Equivocation
quote: An example of the first one (straw man) can be described as Premise {A} {a transitional fossil must be a "hopeful monster" (see S1WC above)} == false definitionPremise {B} {there are no fossils of hopeful monsters} == possibly true statement Conclusion {C} {there is no fossil evidence for macroevolution} == invalid because premise {A} is false. Thus the validity of evolution is not addressed by this argument. Another example of the third form above, equivocation, is a little more subtle, but common on both sides: the problem is that there are two "evolutions" - from Message 98 (1) is the mechanism - (micro\macro)evolution, the change in species over time, (mechanism)evolution or {"M/E"} and (2) is the science - the study of evolution (the mechanism), AND the experiments, AND the observations, AND the results, AND the theories of natural (survival\sexual) selection, common descent, punkeek, etc etc etc, (science)evolution or {"S/E"}. It is fairly common to have the logical arguments flip from one of these evolutions to the other. Conclusion False definitions, poorly constructed logical arguments and invalid conclusions are not elements of critical thinking. They don't represent the truth, they don't represent the science and they don't represent things that should be included in education. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : forum: Education and Creation/Evolution please. Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : shortened and clarified some parts. Some formating. Edited by RAZD, : symbols updated Edited by RAZD, : list fixby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks, I figured length would be a (continuing) problem.
I am interested in what those from the creationist camp think of the problem with definitions.
... the other relates to the apparent "call out" nature of the OP. Not just murkeywaters and someonewhocares, but anyone else. It seems to me to go to the heart of the debate -- talking about the same things using terms with the agreed meanings or seeming to discuss things while talking past each other using different meanings for terms. What I don't understand is that accepted definitions are easy to find - why not use them? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The model says that a base population of animals will undergo a series of speciation events. At the end of a long chain of these we have different taxonomic categories that we see today. Can we derive a complete definition of transitional from this? I am sure we can, using logic and the basic theory of evolution -- change in species over time. It would be interesting to do that in a single topic dedicated to such definition. I had considered doing this in the logic section of the OP, but it was already getting too long, and it also seemed to get away from the topic of why it seems creationists can't use the proper available definitions. Edited by RAZD, : / we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Looks like the shyster arts of suckering the gullibles is alive and well eh? You could run this operation out of your backyard, with the only overhead being a picture of one large rock, a rock saw and sufficint other rocks to slice up and distribute "while supplies last" ... set up an email account and get a PO box for the checks to be sent.
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... the ability to admit to the conclusions reached if they run counter to one`s previous understanding. Aye. If you don't hold out the possibility that you are wrong on an equal footing with all other possibilities, then you have jeopardized your personal results. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
They don't like the definitions because they aren't the strawman they want to tackle. So you aren't going to get them to agree to the definitions. The amazing thing is to see them disagree with a dictionary definition in favour of some outlandish interpretation of their own.
Creos don't "get" that they have to attack the actual science rather than some made up strawman. ... it might be a good exercise to redevelop the defintions for yourself. It would be simple logic: if evolution is change in species over time, what would you see as an intermediate between an ancestral species and a daughter species? You could start with "micro"evolution - what you do see when speciation occurs, the extent of variations and differences within the daughter populations. Then move to a "macro" level and discuss what level of change would be needed. Comparisons to branches on an evolutionary tree could be incorporated to keep the discussion 'honest' on what changes are needed. It would also be interesting to take several known fossil lineages and make predictions on what would be found if an intermediate fossil were discovered, the more "gaps" we added into the prediction lists would mean a sooner return on investment when one is found. We could even ask creos which gaps they would like to see filled. This could be an interesting topic, but one that could take years to produce noticeable results. On the other hand, it could be a really neat project for the forum and one that could run in the background as we progress from day to day. I also note that this is similar to the approach they took to finding Tiktaalik in predicting the features and the environment that such an intermediate species would exhibit and inhabit. Could be fun. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Funny.
From Wikipedia (still)
quote: I don't see any missing parenthetical phrases in that definition ...
Iano writes: I've added in parentheses what is excluded (for some reason) from the first half of the definition. Thus we can read the second half of the definition better as ... Thank you for providing another example of creationist inability to deal with the real definition.
Now that's what I call a neutral definition. And it's one that I call worthless, as it isn't used in evolutionary science, so therefore it doesn't apply to a discussion of evolution. So Iano, do transitional fossils exist that meet the criteria of the scientific definition? A simple yes or no eh? Or is that why you need to change the definition in some way to attempt to neuter this fact? Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Had you worded it so... "So, Iano, do fossils exist that meet the criteria of the evolutionary scientific definition of transitional fossils. A simple yes or no eh?" ..then I would have answered a hearty yes What's the difference? The science in question is evolution. The topic being debated is the change in species over time = evolution.
Message 19 Razd quoted what was described as a neutral (read: scientific) definition when it most certainly is not. No, what I quoted was the proper definition. "Neutral" has nothing to do with it, it's not a matter of voting on the definition, it's a matter of using the proper definition. Let me give you an example:
A dog is a quadraped because it has four (4) legs. If I disagree with this, and claim that we should use a "neutral" definition, that "leg" should be defined as "any appendage off the trunk of the body" and ... Thus a dog is really a hexapod (if female) or a septapod (if male). Does every dog suddenly start running, walking and jumping with it's head and tail (etc.) as a leg? No. Calling them legs does not make them so. A definition is derived to clarify the discussion not obfusticate it. Changing the definition does not make the revised definition true, nor valid, nor meaningful.
The definition is tied in which the assumption that evolution occurs in the TOE sense. For a transitional fossil to exist evolution must be presumed to occur. The definition is derived from the theory of evolution - that species change over time, so therefore you should see evidence of that change over time - with more change possible the more time that is involved - and any fossil found that is intermediate in time between two related specimens shoulod also be intermediate in features, having some changes but not all. But the fossils exist whether evolution is derived as a theory or not, they are the facts of the matter. Creating a false definition doesn't make the proper definition false, it makes any argument using the false definition invalid (see straw man example in OP) and irrelevant. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In Message 47 SW1C boldly states
The truth of Creation is on my side, Creation is the truth. But my(imperfect person's) arguments against evolution using sources with outdated pieces of information is not infallible. It can be wrong, or outdated, because we are fallible humans. But the Creation truth will never fail, that fact that God created everything and you and me will never go wrong. Translation: even when I am totally wrong I am right. Logical corollaries of this are:
The only quality I would add to the fundamentals of Crit-think is 'Courage'--the ability to admit to the conclusions reached if they run counter to one`s previous understanding. Enjoy For the record, on SW1C's little comment:
Yes, I would like it, but RAZD didn't seem to want to debate me one on one when I proposed it, so I don't think he wants to now. I'll debate SW1C - as said before - when he meets my precondition of changing the grossly erroneous misrepresentation regarding lucy and the knee fossil in his "essay" that has already been pointed out to him, ie - he demonstrates that he can debate in good faith and admit when he is just plain wrong (which is most of the time, as demonstrated by anglagard in Message 47 -- even without the error of the knee joint included). we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In the {Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (RAZD and MurkyWaters only)} thread Message 14 and Message 15 the issue of evidence came up, where Murkywaters had used someone elses opinion as evidence for his opinion.
Murkywaters writes: Ok, look...all this discussion of the evidence is unproductive RAZD writes: Or it cuts to the heart of the matter, by discussing what is good evidence and what is not good evidence (or any kind of evidence at all). Saying something does not make it so, thus to substantiate a position you need to provide real evidence for it.
quote: Opinion is not evidence. False opinion is not even worth consideration. Physical evidence is objective -- the broken window is physical evidence. Tree rings are objective evidence. Law does make provision for the testimony of expert witnesses to obtain their opinion of certain facts or possibilities, but for this evidence to be admitted, and judged to be credible by the jury, the expert is subject to cross-examination. This speaks to the issue of the logical fallacy of the "appeal to authority" as it validates the authority on the topic in question and shows that they do know what they are talking about. Science does NOT make provision for expert testimony. For science the only definition applicable is the first one:
quote: Objective physical evidence. Anyone who wants to discuss this aspect the {Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (RAZD and MurkyWaters only)} thread can do so here. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
And oft refuted by an expert brought in by the opposition. Agreed. However one can also make reference to the Dover trial ...
We had a number of high-profile cases overthrown after a few years based on re-examining the forensics. Both times performed by 'experts'. Thus demonstrating the fallacy of the appeal to authority -- they are not immune from making mistakes.
I would suggest that physical evidence also be regarded as tentative,not necessarily objective, pending the exclusion of all or most possible explanations. ... E.g., a ring found containing the name Jehu is located among ruins. The ring is objective evidence, the location it was found in is objective evidence, the time period it was found in has objective evidence (various dating techniques), ... ... the interpretation of the data is subjective and subject to discussion. Logically one can propose a series of ideas, hypothesis, to explain the evidence and then test them to see which one best explains the evidence. The evidence is still evidence for all the hypothesis that attempt to explain the evidence, but some will do so better than others, and these are chosen as the most likely explanations:
Archaeology falls into this trap on many occasions by using either a predetermined mind-set for a find, or jumping to the first possible explanation. And the ensuing storm of criticism of such claims by other archaeologists soon show the viability of various other possible explanations. Look at the Homo floriensis issue for example eh? Yes some scientists make assertions about what the evidence says that sometimes is ill considered (see issue of appeal to authority above), but the issue is still settled (as far as possible) by what the evidence shows AND what the best tested interpretation theory says about the evidence. And willingness to look at all the possibilities and evaluate them and make conclusions based on the best explanation of the evidence rather than any preconceptions is where the courage issue lies. Thanks. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
yes it has been.
See Paluxy Hike for some short stuff (glad I was wearing shorts anyway) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
But Grissom will always have some BUG he can pull out to validate his theory ...
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Philip in Message 84 of The origin of new genes says:
If I write the books I can redefine "beneficial mutation"; why do you trust *authority* anyway? I am copying my reply here where it is also applicable:
Let me give you an example of how this works: I redefine "jesus" to mean "devil" Then I say that because of this definition, all christians are praying to the devil. This of course does not make it so, so what is wrong here? I am using one definition for "jesus" and every christian is using a different definition, so what I am really doing by saying that all christians are praying to the devil is equivocating between my definition and that used by christians. Equivocation is the logical fallacy of using two different definitions of words in different parts of the logical structure. What you are doing in making up your own definition of mutation is (1) creating a straw man (a false definition) and then using that to (2) equivocate between your (false) meaning and the (real) meaning used by biologists. This means your argument is invalid, because you are using two different definitions. IF you want to discuss what biologists are talking about THEN you will use the definitions of the terms they use. Otherwise you are talking about something else and PRETENDING that it is about what the biologists are talking about. Philips response was:
Ouch! If you really want to narrow down this thread topic to mere *new* genes I concede on that point. (...the strawman being "beneficial mutation" as *unrelated in part* to 'new alleles') Otherwise, I'd be interested in your *valid* definition of 'beneficial mutation' (but then you'd be caught up in this strawman) (I was supposing that this thread was equivocating *new genes* with *beneficial mutations* as post 1 (and the ToE) seemed to suggest to me ... another topic) It doesn't seem to me that he got the point about changing definitions. The point is simply that if a discussion is using different meanings for a term, that it is not discussion the same thing. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
From another thread:
Message 53 Aussie: I know how ludicrous this sounds, but I really felt like I had a grip on science. I see the literalists debating here and sometimes I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. No matter how many well-prepared and precisely-delivered lists of evidence for evolution and an old Earth are presented, they just throw out a new turn of phrase, or another variant in their long list of rhetorical objections, and leave feeling as if they have adequately defended the faith. You've surely noted the swagger creationists often display when they first arrive at EvC. They've imbibed the idea that 'God and I make a majority' so they burst into the saloon thinking they can whup any cowpoke in the place. Someone told them they're giants packing bazookas in a world of midgets squirting water pistols. Then comes the collision with reality. Always fun to watch. The confidence surely comes in part from the myth that science is 'really a religion.' This insistence (so bewildering to scientists) is crucial to fundamentalists. It creates the illusion of knowing. They don't understand science at all. To them it's an unknown--a blank surface. But they understand how their religion works and how explanations are crafted in it. To be told science is like that gives them a sense of sure footing. They don't really know the terrain. But blank surfaces are ideal for projecting. In saying 'scientists are like us' they assume a mirror image of their own fundamentalism with left and right inverted. They debate not with real scientists, but with the mirror image. What do they see when they look in the mirror? They tell you. It's a revealing picture. No sooner do they decide 'science is a religion' than they start describing all the things they understand religion to be. They see people deciding all answers a priori. They see people conducting research that isn't open-minded and honest. They see arrogance and materialism. They see people ignoring, suppressing, or even forging evidence. They see a theocracy that refuses to allow dissent. They are telling you how religions, in their experience, really do things. They disclose all the dirt about how fundamentalism works. Under normal curcumstances they would never ascribe these things to religious people. But let that religion go by another name and everything comes out. They point at the mirror and say 'You're a religion. We know what you're really doing!'
and
Message 55 RAZD: Or the only methodology they have for thinking about things is the methodology of their religion, so they think it is the only way things are done. Good point. We've had opportunities here to watch fundamentalists try to put forward their own theories. And they certainly go about it as if science operated by the methods of religion. They think forming a theory is about inventing explanations. And you can see why. In Sunday School they stitched prootexts into a story and called it a doctrine. So in science they expect to stitch bits of data into a story and call it a theory. As soon as all the bits are assembled into a plausible story, mission accomplished. They have science! They expect their story to be as valid as yours because, like your theories, it is an explanation. They expect it to be more true than yours because, like their doctrines, it conforms to religious orthodoxy. And it is work, trying to explain a mountain of scientific data in a way most o fthe world does not. A coherent alternative story is not crafted in one afternoon. But even if they did this, they will have done no science yet. Scientists know no explanation can be called a theory until it demonstrates predictive power. Can we run tests? Can we predict findings? Over and over you see fundamentalists here creating 'theories' who never once think of this. It never occurs to them that any theory they invent should be called upon to predict anything. Why not? I think you hit it, RAZD. It's not necessary in religion. In religion the doctrine of the Trinity works because it explains all the prooftexts and meets the demands of orthodoxy. No one asks what tests to run on the Trinity or how to falsify the Trinity or how to predict what the Trinity will do next. Predictive power is not expected of a religious idea. So they don't expect it of their 'science.' Picking up this conversation here to keep the other from getting derailed:
Over and over you see fundamentalists here creating 'theories' who never once think of this. ... It's not necessary in religion. In religion the doctrine of the Trinity works because it explains all the prooftexts and meets the demands of orthodoxy. There's another element I keep running into - the use and misuse of evidence. First it seems evidence can be something said by just about anyone whether there is a factual basis for it or not - this can be just a layperson's unfamiliarity with science qualifications for evidence - (thus the argument that "Lucy" is some kind of composite is made without checking the facts):
Message 21 Lucy is hardly a worthy example. First of all, she's an extremely incomplete skeleton, secondly, they aren't sure she was in fact female, thirdly, the bones were not found in one location but over a mile stretch. That's quite an amazing feat how bones were dispersed like that. If you want to see an interesting video that brings Lucy into disrepute, start here. And a video is presented as evidence instead of going to the actual fossil and the record of that fossil. Second it seems that contradictory evidence is not a concern, they just need evidence FOR their view, and any old evidence will do. Thus evidence for a young earth is touted, while evidence that invalidates a young earth is ignored or denied, brushed off. Perhaps this has to do with the fundamentalist need to deal with contradictions and conflicts in their interpretations: it isn't anywhere near as prevalent in other christian interpretations. There is the old phrase (I think it is in Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice) that "the devil can cite scripture for his purpose" -- meaning that any position you want to take you can find some section to support it (just don't worry about the ones that contra-indicate it). Thanks, Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024