Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Balancing Faith and Science
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 137 (222552)
07-08-2005 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by PaulK
07-08-2005 3:29 AM


Re: Lewis' argument about reason
Indeed there is no doubt that similar arguments could be made for any complex adaption - even if reasonable lines of evolutiuon are well-known to the experts they could be hard, indeed, for the uninformed layman - like Lewis - to explain (the evolution of the human eye is a common example). Thus Lewis' argument against an evolutionary explanation carries little weight.
This is not just any compex adaptation: this is the evolution of the power of perceiving truths. What you seem to be saying by referring to "personal incredulity" is as follows: We don't know how the power of reasoning arose, but we are certain this has happened. We don't know what consciousness is, either. But we know there is such a thing. Therefore, we should assume that it arose by a process of evolution."
But perhaps the power of perceiving truths did not arise evolutionarily from responses to stimuli, but simply from experience handed down through the generations:
It might be held that this, in the course of millenia, could conjure the mental behavior we call reason--in other words, the practice of inference--out of mental behavior that was originally not rational. Repeated experiences of finding fire (or the remains of fire) where he had seen smoke would condition a man to expect fire whenever he saw smoke. This expectation, expressed in the form "If smoke, then fire" becomes what we call inference. Have all our inferences originated in that way?
But if they did they are all invalid inferences. Such a process will no doubt produce expectation. It will train men to expect fire when they see smoke in just the same way as it trained them to expect that all swans are white (until they saw a black one) or that water would always boil at 212 degrees (until someone tried a picnic on a mountain). Such expectations are not inferences and need not be true
So how did the power of reasoning evolve?
This strikes me as a central puzzle in TOE.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 07-08-2005 09:05 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by PaulK, posted 07-08-2005 3:29 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by PaulK, posted 07-08-2005 10:43 AM robinrohan has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 107 of 137 (222558)
07-08-2005 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by robinrohan
07-08-2005 10:02 AM


Re: Lewis' argument about reason
To say that it is not a complex adaption is, I think, ot beg the question. Why is it not ?
To describe it as "percieving the truth" is also inaccurate - what it does is to (unreliably) distinguish good arguments from bad. If it were a matter of "percieving the truth" then there would be no need to examine the validity of the argument - only the conclusion.
But then again perhaps you do not understand this point. Because, you see, when I point out that Lewis' argument is invalid by statign that it is an argument from impersonal incredulity you take it as an argument for the differnet conclusion. But that is obviously wrong - to say that an argument is invalid is simply to say that it has no value in SUPPORTING the conclusion it argued for. The invalidity of the argument is not closely related to the truth of the conclusion (a valid argument with false premises may have a false conclusion - while an invalid argument may have a true conclusion).
Now, how reasoning evolved is certainly a difficult - and interesting - problem. And one that is not solved yet (although we have some useful evidence).
But that does not make Lewis' argument valid, useful or interesting.
Nor is the trivial point about induction raised in your latest quote. Induction falls short of full logical validity but it is still a highly reliable form of reasoning when properly employed. If Lewis disagrees then he is rejecting all our science and technology. If he agrees then his point is trivial and fails to say anything of relevance to this discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by robinrohan, posted 07-08-2005 10:02 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by GDR, posted 07-08-2005 11:05 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 111 by robinrohan, posted 07-08-2005 12:30 PM PaulK has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 137 (222560)
07-08-2005 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by kjsimons
07-08-2005 8:23 AM


Re: leaping into the abyss
What beliefs of mine are irrational?
Where I said we should all 'play nice'?
lol, that was the only one that I thought was not irrational
Lets look at what you said again.
If a belief in god is not irrational, then a belief in anything no matter how absurb is then also not irrational. So believers in UFOs, ghosts, ESP, IPU (Invisible pink or purple unicorns on Pluto), Scientology, you name it are just as rational.
Sorry, I just don't buy it! Belief may be part of humanity, but IMHO it is ridiculous to call it rational. Believe what you will but to me the only rational belief is based on evidence.
I believe that gods and religion are "extraneous beliefs", with no real basis behind them except for some hairless apes with big brains started thinking such things were needed to explain the whys of existence. My feeling is that we all need to grow up and realize that there is no reason for our existence, we just exist. Now I feel we should contribute to society and "play nice", you know the golden rule and all, but I don't think we need gods and religion to do that.
In the first quote you've defined what beliefs are irrational (bolded). In the second quote you provided us with your beliefs (bolded), which, according to your own definition, are irrational.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by kjsimons, posted 07-08-2005 8:23 AM kjsimons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by kjsimons, posted 07-08-2005 12:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 109 of 137 (222561)
07-08-2005 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by PaulK
07-08-2005 10:43 AM


Re: Lewis' argument about reason
Paulk writes:
Now, how reasoning evolved is certainly a difficult - and interesting - problem. And one that is not solved yet (although we have some useful evidence).
But that does not make Lewis' argument valid, useful or interesting.
That is your subjective opinion. Others including Francis Collins, (see the OP), and myself for that matter found it valid, useful, interesting and much more likely to be true than the idea that consciousness and morality just sprang up by random chance from nothing.
Certainly if you deny the possibility of a metaphysical creator then you will find his arguments useless. I'd suggest that those who truly have an open mind about Theism and Atheism, would find Lewis' views valid, useful and interesting. That is not to say that everyone would be convinced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by PaulK, posted 07-08-2005 10:43 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by PaulK, posted 07-08-2005 11:25 AM GDR has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 110 of 137 (222566)
07-08-2005 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by GDR
07-08-2005 11:05 AM


Re: Lewis' argument about reason
So what you say is that since I notice the glaring errors in Lewis' arguments I must have a "closed mind". You, on the other hand presumably have an "open mind" because you reject my criticisms of Lewis' arguments out of hand.
I think you will find that in normal usage fairly evaluating arguments on their merits is taken to be a sign of an "open mind" while rejecting arguments because their conclusions are unpalatable is regarded as symptomatic of a "closed mind".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by GDR, posted 07-08-2005 11:05 AM GDR has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 137 (222580)
07-08-2005 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by PaulK
07-08-2005 10:43 AM


Re: Lewis' argument about reason
To say that it is not a complex adaption is, I think, ot beg the question. Why is it not ?
What I meant was that this was not just any old complex adaptation, but a mighty peculiar one. Or at least on the face of it it seems unlike the development of the eye, say.
when I point out that Lewis' argument is invalid by statign that it is an argument from impersonal incredulity you take it as an argument for the differnet conclusion. But that is obviously wrong - to say that an argument is invalid is simply to say that it has no value in SUPPORTING the conclusion it argued for.
So you would not argue that the power of reasoning evolved through natural selection? It had to come from somewhere.
But I suppose you are saying that all you were doing was refuting Lewis' argument, not suggesting an alternative argument.
However, you also say:
Now, how reasoning evolved is certainly a difficult - and interesting - problem. And one that is not solved yet (although we have some useful evidence).
So I guess you are assuming that reasoning evolved by natural selection. And so perhaps my comment was not so inaccurate after all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by PaulK, posted 07-08-2005 10:43 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by PaulK, posted 07-08-2005 12:53 PM robinrohan has replied

kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 112 of 137 (222583)
07-08-2005 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by New Cat's Eye
07-08-2005 11:02 AM


Re: leaping into the abyss
But those are based on evidence (or lack there of) and experience. I've never experienced or seen any evidence of gods, so I live my life as though they didn't exist. There is no evidence that there is a 'reason for our existence' but plenty of evidence that we exist, or at least that I do.
By the way I never claimed all my beliefs are rational, after all man is an irrational animal with only brief moments of rationality now and then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-08-2005 11:02 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 113 of 137 (222586)
07-08-2005 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by robinrohan
07-08-2005 12:30 PM


Re: Lewis' argument about reason
As I stated pointing out that an argument has gaping holes in it is not arguing FOR an alternative conclusion - even if I happen to believe the alternative. Rather, it points out that the argument is not a valid basis for beleiving it's conclusion.
If you really don't understand this than I have to suggest that this group is not for you. This is a really basic point for rational discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by robinrohan, posted 07-08-2005 12:30 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by robinrohan, posted 07-08-2005 1:16 PM PaulK has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 137 (222591)
07-08-2005 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by PaulK
07-08-2005 12:53 PM


Paulk's method of argumentation
If you really don't understand this than I have to suggest that this group is not for you. This is a really basic point for rational discussion.
Thank you so much for your advice.
Apparently, I am unable to reason on even the most basic level.
You found this gaping hole in Lewis' argument known as the "argument from incredulity." The point about this fallacy is that the arguer is assuming that, if we cannot immediately explain something naturally, then it must had been due to something supernatural. But in testing such an argument, we must provide some plausible--though not necessarily proven--explanation of the phenomenon in natural terms. You would have to offer a plausible possible explanation in order to refute a so-called argument from incredulity. Just labelling an idea an "argument from incredulity" does not refute it. You have to show in what way the phenomenon--such as the natural evolution of the power of reasoning--is plausible.
This you have not done. What you have done is engage in ad hominen attacks against me and against Lewis. You have hinted that I am unequipped to reason on a basic level, and you have said that Lewis is an "uninformed" layman.
edited for spelling.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 07-08-2005 12:19 PM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 07-08-2005 12:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by PaulK, posted 07-08-2005 12:53 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by NosyNed, posted 07-08-2005 1:40 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 116 by AdminNosy, posted 07-08-2005 1:44 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 117 by PaulK, posted 07-08-2005 2:02 PM robinrohan has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 115 of 137 (222596)
07-08-2005 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by robinrohan
07-08-2005 1:16 PM


arguement from incredulity
Just labelling an idea an "argument from incredulity" does not refute it
Some reading in the area of logic might be in order.
The fallacy of the argument from incredulity is exactly what you are doing. If something is unknown it does not prove anything else.
Not being able to imagine, uncover or construct a solution of one kind to a given problem does not support any other solution until you have exhausted a very large range of possibilities. It certainly does not add any support whatsoever for an solution without any other independent, objective evidence of it's own.
Saying that I don't know how Smith murdered someone does not give me the slightist support for saying that Jones did. It only weakens my case against Smith.
If I can say under the known circumstances that I can not figure out how Smith did it my case against Jones is not strengthened at all. It does weaken my case against Smith however.
If I can show that no one can suggest any plausible way that Smith did the murder I weaken the case against Smith a great deal more. I still have no evidence what so ever to accuse Jones.
If by some set of evidence it is somewhat plausible that one of Smith or Jones HAD to have committed the murder then and only then does any weakening of the case against Smith support the case against Jones. However, I need significant evidence to implicat Jones first.
If any one can come up with any plausible idea of how Smith might have committed the murder then my case against Jones is weakened considerably since I am basically arguing from incredulity and that is a very weak argument indeed.
However (and this is an important point) we are NOT discussing a legal case. We are discussing logic! The argument from incredulity is from a logical point of view fallacious. In other words, while we might give it a small amount of weight in a courtroom, in logic it carries no weight at all.
ABE
Just labelling an idea an "argument from incredulity" does not refute it.
From a logical point of view if the argument is just one based on incredulity (in this case disbelief that a mechanism could have done something without any other support than that AND using that as support for another mechanism) then it IS logically fallacious.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-08-2005 01:47 PM
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 07-08-2005 12:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by robinrohan, posted 07-08-2005 1:16 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by robinrohan, posted 07-08-2005 2:42 PM NosyNed has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 116 of 137 (222597)
07-08-2005 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by robinrohan
07-08-2005 1:16 PM


be careful of editing
deleted erroneous accusation.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 07-08-2005 01:45 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by robinrohan, posted 07-08-2005 1:16 PM robinrohan has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 117 of 137 (222604)
07-08-2005 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by robinrohan
07-08-2005 1:16 PM


Re: Paulk's method of argumentation
The fact is that when I pointed out that Lewis' argument against an evolutionary origin of human reasoning ability was invalid, you attempted to paint it as an argument for an evolutionary aorigin of our reasoning ability.
Perhaps you would like to explain your reasons for doing so if you knew that it would not be a valid argument.
Your assessment of the argument from personal increduility is in error. An argument from personal incredulity is simply where one possibility is rejected because it is beleived to be effectively impossible - with no sound basis for that conclusion. As I pointed out I could equally argyue against Lewis' preferred alternative on my own personal incredulity. Thus - as I pointed out - the argument is simply a subjective assessment and thus invalid.
Your demand to produce an alternative might be appropriate if you were willing to meet the same criterion yourself. But you are not - and Lewis argumewnt does not include any such attempt. Your one-sided demand then simply serves to imbalance the situation in your favour.
It is absolutely false to say that I have engaged in ad hominem attacks. Rather I have pointed out major and serious errors in Lewis' arguments which you have failed to address. Equally your arguments have betrayed a basic failure to understand how rational argument works. Are you admitting that you know better ? If so how do you explain your errors ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by robinrohan, posted 07-08-2005 1:16 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by robinrohan, posted 07-08-2005 2:47 PM PaulK has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 137 (222615)
07-08-2005 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by NosyNed
07-08-2005 1:40 PM


Re: arguement from incredulity
Saying that I don't know how Smith murdered someone does not give me the slightist support for saying that Jones did. It only weakens my case against Smith.
Who said anything about Jones? I didn't. Nothing I quoted from Lewis did.
From a logical point of view if the argument is just one based on incredulity (in this case disbelief that a mechanism could have done something without any other support than that AND using that as support for another mechanism) then it IS logically fallacious.
What other mechanism? I never mentioned another mechanism.
The argument from incredulity involves trying to prove one alternative is true because we can't conceive the possibility of the original alternative.
But I haven't talked about any other alternative. All I've discussed are the diffulties in explaining theoretically the evolution of the power of reasoning.
Therefore, I have not engaged in the argument from incredulity.
edited for spelling.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 07-08-2005 01:44 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by NosyNed, posted 07-08-2005 1:40 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by NosyNed, posted 07-08-2005 2:55 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 137 (222618)
07-08-2005 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by PaulK
07-08-2005 2:02 PM


Re: Paulk's method of argumentation
It is absolutely false to say that I have engaged in ad hominem attacks
If you suggest to somebody that their reasoning skills are so bad that they should leave the group, that is an ad hominem attack.
For more comments, see reply I made to Ned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by PaulK, posted 07-08-2005 2:02 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by PaulK, posted 07-08-2005 2:56 PM robinrohan has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 120 of 137 (222623)
07-08-2005 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by robinrohan
07-08-2005 2:42 PM


Re: arguement from incredulity
Who said anything about Jones? I didn't. Nothing I quoted from Lewis did.But I haven't talked about any other alternative. All I've discussed are the diffulties in explaining theoretically the evolution of the power of reasoning.
ABE - Jones == God. I thought the whole point was that Lewis arrived at a "reasoned" approach to god. end ABE
Even if no other option is suggested (which is not the case here) the arugment that a thing is difficult to explain is only a weakening. It is also a weakening only in a reasoned (but nor formally "logical") approach to trying to determine an explanation. It is NOT a weakening in a LOGICAL sense. There are two different things being mixed up here.
Since it is possible to construct a so-called "just so story" about the evolution of the issue under discussion the incredulity arguement is weakened considerably. That is "no way!" is shot to shit if there is any "way" at all.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-08-2005 02:59 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by robinrohan, posted 07-08-2005 2:42 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by robinrohan, posted 07-08-2005 3:01 PM NosyNed has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024