Oh those clever etcetera--What RAZD said

OK, here is the paragraph again:

quote:

---

Math is not evidence for reality. If you have a mathematical model that says something cannot happen when you have evidence around you that it has, the probability is high that the mathematical model is erroneous.

---

The problem, as Parasomnium has pointed out on this thread, is that two of these statements contradict each other. It's pretty clear that when he speaks of "evidence all around us" he has life in mind, not abiogenesis, since there's hardly that kind of conspicuous evidence for abiogenesis. But in the first statement about a "mathematical model that says something cannot happen" he is clearly not speaking of life but of the origin of life from non-life, because that's what the mathematical model purports to be describing, certainly not life itself, as there's no way anyone is saying "life cannot happen." This wouldn't even make sense as an abstract statement because it's too absurd. It says "WHEN there is evidence," even "when there is evidence ALL AROUND YOU." The "if" refers to the mathematical model, not the evidence. Translation: Given this mathematical model that "says something cannot happen" BUT IN FACT you have evidence all around you that IT HAS, THEN the model is most likely wrong.

quote:

---

If the model says something cannot happen
But evidence all around you says it has happened
Then the model is most likely wrong.

---

That's quite true in the abstract.But in context you get one of two possibilities:

quote:

---

(1) If the model says abiogenesis cannot happen
But evidence all around you says abiogenesis has happened
Then the model is most likely wrong.

---

Problem is that there is no evidence all around that abiogenesis has happened. So who knows if the model is wrong or not from this statement.Yet again, since clearly he had in mind that the evidence is that LIFE happened, not abiogenesis, we get:

quote:

---

(2) If the model says life cannot happen
But evidence all around you says life has happened
Then the model is most likely wrong.

---

Problem here of course is that the model isn't saying that life cannot happen. No model would ever say such a thing. Yet RAZD pretty clearly did mean to say that the evidence all around you is that life has happened, not abiogenesis.The whole statement functions as begging the question in favor of abiogenesis. I read it as RAZD's simply so completely believing that the only way life could have arisen is by some natural process, life out of non-life, that asserting the evidence for life itself all around us is pretty much synonymous in his mind with saying that abiogenesis has happened. I think what the statements mean as outlined above are clear enough on the face of it and that they add up to the question-begging I'm talking about. Do you mean this text?: "To argue from the existence of life that the "improbability" of it is evidence of miraculous intervention is just a post hoc ergo proctor hoc logical fallacy"I don't recall your argument, but my point is that his fallacy is obvious in this statement, as he is misrepresenting the mathematical model as arguing for the improbability of LIFE, rather than abiogenesis, which shows how the two are practically synonymous in his mind, thus begging the question the model aims to challenge. It isn't necessary, but perhaps it helps and should have been included, though I'm not even sure it helps. The fallacy is quite clear there too, but doesn't seem to be as evident to others as it is to me nevertheless. I said "ignore CONTEXT" not ignore "text" and I meant the context of the question of abiogenesis which is what the mathematical model is about. In any case, the above statements are irrelevant to the point about question-begging. They are about the scientific questions, which were not my topic. The fallacy I wanted to demonstrate is not changed by these statements or dependent on them.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-06-2005 10:16 PM

[quote] But I think the most important point here is that your arguing includes a catch 22Firstly you argue that

quote:

---

he is clearly not speaking of life but of the origin of life from non-life, because that's what the mathematical model purports to be describing, certainly not life itself, as there's no way anyone is saying "life cannot happen." This wouldn't even make sense as an abstract statement because it's too absurd.

---

So you claim that we must read RAZD as speaking of abiogenesis, not the origin of life and therefore he is begging the question.But later you say

quote:

---

I don't recall your argument, but my point is that his fallacy is obvious in this statement, as he is misrepresenting the mathematical model as arguing for the improbability of LIFE, rather than abiogenesis, which shows how the two are practically synonymous in his mind, thus begging the question the model aims to challenge.

---

Where you claim that he is begging the question BECAUSE he is speaking of the origin of life, not abiogenesis. The very reading you rejected as absurd.And while the quotes you ignored are not relevant to this partoicualr question they ARE very elevant to you assertion that RAZD was offering a legitimate calculation of the probability of abiogenesis. They make it VERY clear that RAZD rejected the possiiblity of such a calculation.So while your claim of "question begging" relies on a reading so uncertain that even you can't decide what is meant - surely indicating that there is room for legitimate disagreement - there is no uncertainty about RAZD's view of the legitimacy of the probability calculations he offered.So we see that you accuse others of ignoring the context when in fact they disagree with you on the interpretation and inferences to be drawn form that context. Yet you ignored the context of the probability calculations even though that is absolutely clear and explicit.A certain saying about motes and beams comes to mind..

It seems to me that you read RAZD's post in a way that would involve begging the question. However, there are legitimate reasons for it to be read in a way that is not begging the question. The fact that you cannot admit that there are legitimate reasons for this other way of looking at what was said, or try to understand what you were told about modelling does not help your case.Modulous' breakdown is better than Pars's. That you suggest you can understand modulous' breakdown in the other thread sort of, yet fully agree with Pars' though it is more intricate, has me scratching my head why you can't figure out what you were told about modelling. Indeed it seems your ignorance and inability to understand a concept is predicated on whether the ending involves "you are right" or "you may be right". That is a sad statement on your part.In the end it will have to be RAZD explaining what he really meant, and what he has said so far seems to support the interpretation which is not begging the question.Is he lying, and conveniently switching to a different meaning of his words? I don't know, but that does not change the fact that the other interpretation which is not begging the question is a valid one.Is it not possible to agree that there are two valid interpretations of this, and those willing to grant or assume he was discussing models in one way will take one meaning from it, and those thinking he meant something else will take it another way, and in the end it will be an enigma based on whether you trust RAZD to tell you which he meant?This message has been edited by holmes, 10-07-2005 06:19 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Holmes, I suspect he chose his words poorly, that's no crime, but if so he needs to say so. Otherwise a literal reading of his comment is begging the question, but like I say, I don't think he meant what he said.That RAZD made a circular argument doesn't negate abiogenesis in any way.Mark

---

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

I agree its rather obvious there was a poor word choice, given that so much has come out of so little. However... I still don't see how a literal reading takes you one way or the other. I was not convinced by Pars' explanation. It seems to me literally it could mean anything until placed in a context. From having done modelling, what he appeared to be saying rang as not only familiar but true, and just as it was put. Could it have been clearer? Yes. I agree and that's why I have no emotional investment in whether it is shown he was begging the question or not. In fact someone tried to defend RAZDs position using an erroneous argument. Well, actually two people did.I honestly don't see the logical demand that it was begging the question, that he had to be assuming a conclusion as part of his argument, and in context and further explanations from RAZD it doesn't seem likely that it was.If there is a better explanation than pars', or maybe a clearer one as I missed something, then I might change my mind.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

A lot of shuffling going on. And we have Percy saying that one should not interpret closely a casually written passage, etc. That one cracked me up. And maybe it was confusedly said, but that's not the main point, etc. And it's all Faith's fault that RAZD begged the question. If she only understood the concept of probability better, and wasn't such a dupe . . . and I said if she wasn't so angry and contemptuous all the time maybe other posters would take her a little more seriously and so forth . . .Shuffle, shuffle . . .

Heheheh... agreed. It seems there are many diverse view points on this one. I've disagreed with people both for and against leaving RAZD off the hook. I know what I have said has been in conflict with others, including people I generally agree with.Ah well. Is it really worth all this pain? I was hoping maybe to offer a resolution where we can all agree it COULD have been BtQ, and what Faith had set out to be RAZDs statement certainly was BtQ, but that from what angle you look at it (though not tied to the overall EvC spectrum) RAZDs statement may or may not have been the way Faith took it.Shuffle shuffle

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Here's my take on the context:SirIan mentioned a very low probability of abiogenesis: He also mentioned a book titled 'Evolutionossible or Impossible'.The low probability and the word 'impossible' triggered the following remarks from RAZD: Then he says: The operative word is 'indeed'. RAZD concedes the tentative truth of SirIan's low probability, which was about abiogenesis. Unfortunately RAZD didn't actually say "abiogenesis" but "life". But there is no doubt in my mind that he meant abiogenesis.The "it" in "once it has happened" can only mean "life" - actual life, as we find it on earth - but RAZD says that "once it has happened, the probability is irrelevant". What probability? The probability of abiogenesis. That's the only probability he could have meant, because that's what he was arguing about. Well, the fact that life occurred does not make the probability of abiogenesis irrelevant, because "life" is not necessarily equivalent to "life through abiogenesis". The life we find may have been created seven seconds ago, with all our memories in place and this whole discussion typed out by God, for us to find and continue.RAZD may have come back with an explanation, I haven't read everything pertaining this discussion, but this is the way I see it. RAZD made a simple mistake and Faith spotted it. I stand by my analysis.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 07-Oct-2005 02:29 PM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

No shuffing on my part--Faith is simply wrong.One can read RAZD's post through a filter of his known beliefs and then conclude he is implying a fallacious argument. But the only strong reason to do this is to wish it so.But when evaluating a proposition, one is well advised to construe its strongest form, just as a chess player anticipates that an opponent is contemplating the strongest move available, not the error one hopes he will make.In the normal course of a discussion, we might say, "It sounds to me that you are begging the question--did you really mean (x)?" The back-and-forth of clarification refines both understandings and advances the discussion. We see this exchange often here.I am a fan of Rogerian rhetoric and logic, a system that tries to make the exercise of reason less of an "arena" sport and more of a mutual search for understanding and common ground (where it exists): one hallmark is the stage at which each participant must paraphrase the other's position to that proposer's satisfaction.That Rogerian clarity is the polar opposite of what happened here. Rather than seek any clarification whatsoever, Faith moved immediately to make her opinion a jeering, ridiculing challenge to evolutionists. Her motivation was clear: she wished to typify evolutionists' conduct generally in terms of begging the question fallacies.She now declares her interpretation of RAZD's text to be indisputable fact, and the failure of many to agree evidence of fallacious evolutionist arguments and a bad faith refusal to acknowledge the same. This is where she wanted to be. Yes, Faith, I do. You chose your interpretation carefully to serve your rhetorical ends. Rather than engage in the normal clarifying give-and-take of a discussion, you sought rhetorical/tactical advantages in a larger dispute. You gimmicked the discussion to score points. Your interpretation was wrong, and your tactics were counterproductive.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 10-07-2005 09:33 AM

---

IMHO

Ugh... I already gave my analysis and I stick by mine. I think you are wrong. As it is you are working with a section of what RAZD said and not the part which Faith was claiming was BtQ.There are two sections, he starts with the specific which I would agree appears to be about abiogenesis in specific, but it is only as an example of why improbable is different than impossible... and it is correct. He can assume abiogenesis in that theoretical example, because the point is to show why a model's predictions of improbability would have no bearing on whether something could or did happen when you are talking about a potential product that does exist.Thus if you currently have nothing and predict it is unlikely to occur given the odds of a certain mechanism, then one can safely assume it is unlikely to happen on your watch, HOWEVER given the reality of probabilities it could very well happen in the very next second!Improbability is no bar to possibility, nor actual occurrence.Okay then so if you currently have something that is the potential product of a specific mechanism, no matter how highly improbable your mathematical model assesses that mechanism would be to produce the result, it still may have. The improbable does not mean the impossible, and so the improbable may have happened.That's the part you just quoted from and why that is not begging the question. It was a theoretical explanation.Then we get to the next paragraph which is what Faith quoted... That is a general statement about models and what they can or cannot say given what he had just said above using abio as an example. In this case he says "something", not life nor abiogenesis, indeed it could be special creation. Thus something and it in this generic second paragraph are referring to a potential product of whatever generic system you are modelling.And yes, given what else he said, and as I discussed in my earlier post, the probability is high that one's mathematical model is erroneous in such a case.Wait I just realized there is an error here. Or a potential error. Though it is not begging the question. In neither case is the model actually proven erroneous, it is only proven to be moot or useless. Since he was in this case (assuming he was moving from the argument directly above) arguing that the improbable can happen despite the low value of a probability, the model could still be right, but reality went the other way.Mmmmm yes, the correct statement would have been that if you have evidence that something did happen, then it shows the models predicting it was unlikely are either wrong, or reality beat the odds anyway.There is of course the possibility that the models are right it was improbable, and it didn't happen that way, but that is not directly logically true and determining between the three brings in the knowledge base used to make the calculations of probability.And then this goes back to my first response to Faith which dealt only with that very quote she put as being the example of BtQ.Once again, I have to scratch my head if Faith can understand what we are saying, and then claim not to understand what was said earlier about models and how they pertain to the single sentence she posted as BtQ.Did I convince ya?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Let me correct myself... now that I read his whole post again, I think I was in error saying that there was an error with the paragraph Faith had posted.It is correct that if it was supposed to be solely in relation to his last specific example, then it was a misstatement in that it should have added that the odds simply could have been beaten.However, given that it was separate, and essentially the last paragraph of that section listing all the common errors, as a general sum up it is completely correct. If that paragraph was the conclusion to be drawn regarding models given all previous errors described in specific, then there was no mistake made by RAZD at all.That is besides the point of there being no BtQ. I hope you'll give it another look see. Take a look where the paragraph is that Faith was discussing. It should jump out at you that the BtQ is not right, and likely there is no error at all. Except if he meant it as a final conclusion he could have said "In conclusion...".This message has been edited by holmes, 10-07-2005 11:02 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

If the death penalty existed for threads, this one deserves it IMO. Or what about implementing some extinction?

I didn't get around to studying Modulous' breakdown. Meant to, and later may. I merely accepted his view that it could be question-begging.I can't see any other way of breaking it down than what I just posted. I do not see another legitimate way of breaking it down.And I did not say he was lying.

I did not make a distinction between "the origin of life" and "abiogenesis." I do not know where you get that. In one place he speaks of life as existing, in another place of how it got there by abiogenesis. To say the mathematical model is challenging the existence of life is absurd. It is challenging the origin of life in abiogenesis. RAZD appears to be unable to distinguish the two. Perhaps this is your problem as well.I see no other way of reading it than what I spelled out. I do not understand the problem.Unfortunately I don't have the time to ponder this further for a few hours.I should just chalk it up to what I originally expected. The question-begging is obvious to a creationist but few others.

I didn't CHOOSE anything. I read RAZD's statement and laughed out loud.All this parsing is ridiculous. My analysis is perfectly correct. There must be some semantic problem involved somewhere or something like that. For instance, PaulK seems to have confused "existence of life" with "origin of life." That would certainly confuse the point.But probably all this proves is what I said at the start, that few other than creationists can see through this kind of question-begging by evolutionists. Robinrohan and Parasomnium seem to have done so but perhaps I should review their reasoning to be sure we're on the same page, and Modulous' as well, who thinks maybe there was some question-begging going on but doesn't totally commit to the idea.While I find it difficult to express clearly I don't find it at all hard to recognize. Yes, I find my reading of it to be indisputable.But unfortunately I don't have the time to spend here today until later.