|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Oh those clever etcetera--What RAZD said | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You have a block of text listing a series of errors. Whether you agree with them or not is besides the point. They all relate to problems with models of systems. I GOT this already.
The next to last paragraph is addressing the last error in the list of errors. This is indisputable as the number is right there to show it is the last in the list of errors. I GOT this already.
Because he is discussing a type of error he is not arguing for or against abiogenesis. He is giving an example, and explanation, why improbability does not equate to impossibility. I GOT this already.
When you do that you may use an omniscient viewpoint and assume anything. This is what I meant by generic or abstract. You may assume anything. You are making an abstract point. I don't know how "omniscient" fits. He is making an abstract point and therefore no specifics are needed in his generalization. NEVERTHELESS, such an abstraction must WORK with the specifics to be valid and his does not, it falsifies the discussion that is on the table.
Examples illustrating a point generally cannot be considered BtQ, unless he was to draw a conclusion about the subject within the explanation right then and there. He did not. He ended that paragraph explaining the type of fallacy that it is name after having given you and example of it. I GOT THIS ALREADY. But you obviously did not get one thing I have said.
Then there is the last paragraph. It is either a concluding statement about that fallacy he just listed, which would be redundant (though that does not exclude the possibility as I am often repetitive), or it is a conclusion to the entire list of errors summing up what models mean about reality. Given the redundancy, and the fact that he did switch to generalized language from specific, it really appears that that statement is a conclusion about models in general. I KNOW IT IS. I have said this numerous times, that in the abstract there is nothing wrong with his statement, it is only when it is applied to the example that you see its question-begging. But you are wrong, he DOES NOT stick to the abstract, he brings in the concept of "life's being a highly unlikely event on the grand cosmic scale" and speaks of "arguing from the existence of life." CLEARLY he is still addressing the topic of abiogenesis and his remarks about mathematical models in the abstract are to be applied to that topic. And even if he HADN'T mentioned it, obviously in context his remarks should be applied to that topic and when they are they are falsified; they misrepresent the model and they beg the question that he is disputing. The "something that doesn't happen" that he imputes to the mathematical model can only refer to abiogenesis, unless he is to misrepresent that model, but the "something for which there is evidence all around us" cannot refer to abiogenesis, it must refer to the existence of life as such, and this ends up begging the question. This is the logical form of his generalization: Premise: You claim something can't happenArgument: But you have evidence all around you that it has. Conclusion: Therefore your premise is false. In the abstract this is true. But the premise in this case is that Abiogenesis can't happen, and the argument CAN'T be that you have evidence all around you that abiogenesis has happened. But his claim that there is evidence that falsifies the original claim is question-begging as clearly he has the existence of life as such in mind, is misrepresenting the model to be claiming that life can't even exist, and therefore he is treating abiogenesis as a foregone conclusion, which is begging the question.
It will have an application to the models regarding abiogenesis, but not a direct one in the way you are implying it has. If it does not have a direct application to the model the whole post is about, it is a false generalization. And as I have demonstrated over and over and over, the generalization misrepresents the mathematical model and begs the question of the whole discussion when it is applied to it -- and it MUST be applied to it to make sense.
Even if it were a conclusion of the preceding paragraph it would still not be a BtQ as it is the preceding point was simply an explanation of improbabilities. In fact in a way, by connecting it to the preceding paragraph you have made it worse for yourself, though I see why the similar language would allow you to draw a conclusion you did. You aren't seeing anything. His bringing up life in the preceding paragraph ties it back to the discussion that you are trying to untie it from and already shows that he is having a problem distinguishing between the existence of life and the way life originated. I refer you back to my Message 60 and Message 31 both, and I consider the discussion over. I'm sure you will claim victory as you always do, but you are wrong. This message has been edited by Faith, 10-08-2005 04:01 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
If this is Thread #2, Post 76, it must be Saturday.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I really get amused by people telling me what I said.
Especially when they cannot discern the nuances of the arguments. For the record, what I said was that there were several errors involved in the usual creationist "calculations" of improbability. I repeat them here summarized and clarified:
Common error #1 Not enough is known about the system to calculate the odds. We don't know how many sides are on the dice, we don't know how many are being thrown, and we don't know the numbers on the sides. Any mathematical model that pretends to model such an unknown system is based on too many assumptions to be valid. Common error #2 The calculation itself is done improperly. Even if the {model} was right (it isn't) the calculation is wrong. This is like an argument based on a false premise. The fact that the calculation is done wrong should also be a clue that the source is unreliable. Common error #3 The number of valid solutions is not evaluated. If the number of valid solutions is anywhere near as great as the number of possible results, then the probability is high that a valid result occurs. Common error #4 The difference between improbable and impossible is vast. Divide any improbable number you like by zero and the result is infinity: that is the difference between improbable and impossible. Does this mean that abiogenesis HAS to be the answer? No. That is absurd logically and does not follow from the argument. Does this mean then that god-did-it HAS to be the answer? No. That is absurd logically and does not follow from the argument. All that it means is that the argument based on a mathematically false, logically false, informationally devoid improbability calculation is invalid. Now: (1) do you still consider this "begging the question" or not?(2) do you get it yet? This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*08*2005 07:30 PM by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Gosh, I'm gone for three days and people are analysing my words as if they were the wholly grail!
RAZD equivocates when he says "once it has happened", "it" meaning "life on earth". He cannot say that the probability is irrelevant, because the probability he's talking about is the probability of something else. He can only be right if he assumes that life on earth is the result of abiogenesis. But that was what was under dispute. And that's exactly what Faith is on about. Faith is right: RAZD commited a fallacy.RAZD equivocates when he says "once it has happened", "it" meaning "life on earth". He cannot say that the probability is irrelevant, because the probability he's talking about is the probability of something else. He can only be right if he assumes that life on earth is the result of abiogenesis. But that was what was under dispute. And that's exactly what Faith is on about. Faith is right: RAZD commited a fallacy. No. Sorry to disagree. The evidence is that there is life. It is here. We have it. The probability is irrelevant because it is a fact that life exists. The question is whether the cause is abiogenesis, god-did-it or some other possible answer. If the answer is GDI so be it. If the answer is abiogensis, then the event, no matter how improbable it really was, Watson, happened. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6496 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Ya know RAZD....
I was wondering when you would set the record straight. This thread is the most tedious one I have ever had the pleasure of remotely following
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks. I now know that I am god-like in my ability to inspire others to interpret my meanings
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
All that is not begging the question, it is what you intended to say, yes, but you ignore what you said unintentionally in the process, which did beg the question. Obviously you and others here have not bothered to understand what I have written. I will not repeat it.
{Edit: But I will link my statements on it in Message 31, Message 60, and Message 76. This message has been edited by Faith, 10-08-2005 09:04 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The quotes in question logically do not allow for Creation, RAZD, although you assert it from time to time in other places. It would be good of you to rethink those quotes.
The evidence is that there is life. It is here. We have it. The probability is irrelevant because it is a fact that life exists. The mathematical model was not computing the probability of there being life, of life's existing, but of its arising out of non-life naturally, or in other words of abiogenesis. I have said this I don't know how many times already. For you to speak in terms of the probability of life's existing is to misrepresent your opponent's mathematical model in this respect, no matter how erroneous that model may in fact be scientifically. You are begging the question of abiogenesis by appearing to equate the mere existence of life with abiogenesis. You did this in at least two different ways in the two paragraphs that have been quoted. I am sure it was a mere slip of the tongue, though you did it at least twice which certainly implies a strong unconscious commitment to the idea, and it does put creationists unfairly behind the eight ball, and with all the ammunition supporting your mistake this is just one more example of the multiple reasons why there is no point in any creationist ever raising a point at EvC ever. This message has been edited by Faith, 10-08-2005 09:02 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6496 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
This is a rather telling microcosum of religion. Faiths response to you reminds me of Life of Brian and the bit about the holy gourd or his shoe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ohnhai Member (Idle past 5162 days) Posts: 649 From: Melbourne, Australia Joined: |
The mathematical model was not computing the probability of there being life, of life's existing, but of its arising out of non-life naturally, or in other words of abiogenesis.
Reading back; beyond RAZD’s post, to the posts by Ned and SirIan this whole thing was dealing with a questionable mathematical probability model of the random assemblage of a protein (which was, wrongly, being used to argue against Abiogenesis) . Though proteins are inexorably tied to life they are not life and thus the model under discussion was not Abiogenesis but the probability of the formation of a protein through random sequential connections. RAZD was simply pointing out the common errors in the way these calculations are done despite the fact that these calculations are invalid anyway due to the fact that we are mostly guessing about the mechanisms required in the first place. So if the model under discussion was not actually Abiogenesis then he couldn’t have been BtQ even if you chose to read it that way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
All that is not begging the question, it is what you intended to say, yes, it is what I said. thank you. everything else is your misinterpretation of what I said. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The quotes in question logically do not allow for Creation, RAZD, although you assert it from time to time in other places. It would be good of you to rethink those quotes. They do not necessarily need to. They don't have to match your creation. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What he INTENDED to do and THOUGHT he was doing is a completely other subject, as in actual FACT what he DID say in the TWO PARAGRAPHS quoted ad nauseum here, begs the question. It doesn't matter that the specific focus was a particular protein, the basic topic was whether life in any form can arise from non-life, and it doesn't matter whether the probabilities computed were erroneous or not, the basic topic was whether life in any form can arise from non-life. How long are you guys going to continue to evade the issue? You'd think RAZD was charged with some heinous crime instead of mere question-begging the way you contort yourselves to ignore what I've demonstrated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Gosh, I'm gone for three days and people are analysing my words as if they were the wholly grail! Congratulations, RAZD. The passage is now infamous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So you flat-out deny what has been quoted from you time and time again, about how the existence of life can't be improbable or impossible considering that life in fact does exist, falsely imputing that claim to your opponent's probability model. How do you justify such deceitfulness? Would it kill you to be wrong?
This message has been edited by Faith, 10-08-2005 11:49 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024