Biased Interpretation?

That was sort of what I had hoped I had implied; after all, "technology" is the term we use for employing the findings of science to manipulate the natural world.It was my hope to contrast the social strife of the Dark Ages and other examples of theocracy with the practical benefits of the application of science. And also, since I'm an asshole, I was trying to be smarmy and arrogant about it. Mission accomplished!

quote:

---

Are you suggesting that since they are constrained by a bias (Bible) that they feel evolutionists SURELY MUST BE constrained by some bias also?

---

I doubt they actually give it a lot of thought. They know they must be right, and the failure of all of those scientists to see it their way must have some explanation. This one sounds good, and fits in well with their more general ideas about spiritual warfare and spiritual blindness.

quote:

---

How can you know that you are not?

---

One can never know for sure, of course. But I can't figure out what presuppositions I might have that would have the claimed effect, so it's hard to take the problem too seriously.

quote:

---

Better yet, how can you convince those that accuse you, that you aren't constrained by inordinate presuppositions?

---

Probably impossible, since they generally have no interest in understanding their opponents, as far as I can tell.

quote:

---

I have met a number of creationists that seem very knowledgeable about science. Then they spout the presupposition retoric and I wonder if they are capable (and deceitful) or not capable (and honest). Then again, there is always the possibility that I could be the one who is not seeing.

---

I've met very, very few creationists who were knowledgable about science in any deep way.

quote:

---

It was my hope to contrast the social strife of the Dark Ages and other examples of theocracy with the practical benefits of the application of science.

---

Might I suggest you take the bold step of learning something about a subject before commenting on it? The Dark Ages (as they are still sometimes called by those who know little about them) were nothing like a theocracy. The church wielded almost no political power, and was largely subordinated to secular rulers.(I'm trying my hand at being smarmy and arrogant too. What do you think of my effort?)

quote:

---

The Dark Ages (as they are still sometimes called by those who know little about them) were nothing like a theocracy. The church wielded almost no political power, and was largely subordinated to secular rulers.

---

Um, can you give an example of some secular rulers during the Dark Ages.For example, can you list the Dark Ages rulers who did not rule by divine fiat?There is also this from wikipedia:Dark Ages - Wikipedia I also found this nice picture: The caption reads:"Triumph of Christianity" by Tommaso Laureti (1530-1602), ceiling painting in the Sala di Constantino, Vatican Palace. Images like this one celebrate the destruction of ancient pagan culture and the victory of Christianity.

Wasn't most of the actual power under feudalism centered in secular rulers? They had alliances at times with the church but as often saw the Pope as the enemy and the Pope was also continuously playing one against the other for political reasosn. Weren't there even several Popes at the same time, based in different areas and all claiming sole authority? In particular wasn't this the time when the Mayors rose in power within the Frankish areas, the rise of Pepin, then Charles Martel, leading to Charles (Charlemagne)? In addition, wasn't this the period when the Anglo-Saxons became a force and perhaps even a nation?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You quote Ham as saying Many of the replies have used specific examples of scientific techniques to demonstrate the lack of presupposition such as rock dating. I would suggest that an open goal has been missed here. Evolutionists and scientists donot presuppose there is no God, neither do they presuppose that no God had a hand in creation.To tackle the second point first, since evolution has nothing to do with the first life, they don't have to presuppose anything and even if they did, it would have no bearing on evolution.The first point is so obvious that I'm surprised anyone still dares to use it as it can be shown not only to be wrong, but dishonest. Since this gets trotted out with nauseating regularity, I'm going to do this step by step.1. I am a scientist.
2. I am a Christian.
3. I accept evolution as the best theory we have to explain the evidence
4. I believe in God.
5. I still have room to give God credit for creating life in some way or another.Those five points show the total fallacy of the statement from Ham that you quoted. Now, I'm not the only scientist and Christian who can maintain a belief in God and accept evolution. If science really did presuppose that there was no God, there would be NO Christians in science. The only reason that this presupposition is trotted out by Creationists is to artificially level the playing field. They can't deny that they approach science with the presupposition that Biblical Creation is correct and that's one of the main criticisms of Biblical Creationists' approach to science - they know where they want the evidence to lead then perform mental gymnastics, breaking chemical and physical laws to get the evidence to the required destination. So, to level this playing field they arbitrarily ascribe presuppositions to the scientists to try to neutralise the criticisms of Creationists' presuppositional approach. Sadly, its all too easy to show that they are wrong in doing this as I've just done with my five points above.Unfortunately the dishonesty of ascribing an atheism to those who accept evolution has become all to common, witness Willowtree's continual use of the term "evo-atheists" a while back, even when addressing Christians who accept evolution. When faced with this sort of evidence, out comes the usual "ah, but you're not a true Christian".There's none so blind and deaf as those that shut their eyes, cover their ears and sing "LA LA LA" loudly in the face of evidence which soundly refutes their claims.

quote:

---

Wasn't most of the actual power under feudalism centered in secular rulers? They had alliances at times with the church but as often saw the Pope as the enemy and the Pope was also continuously playing one against the other for political reasosn. Weren't there even several Popes at the same time, based in different areas and all claiming sole authority? In particular wasn't this the time when the Mayors rose in power within the Frankish areas, the rise of Pepin, then Charles Martel, leading to Charles (Charlemagne)? In addition, wasn't this the period when the Anglo-Saxons became a force and perhaps even a nation?

---

Almost all power in Feudal socities was secular, becuase it was based on the capacity to mobilise armed men - milites - to defend their lords interests. But the Church played a huge role in this regard as the legitimiser and apologist of their rule. The lords provided patronage, ealth and architecture in exchange for legitimacy and ritual.But the Church was still a potent SECULAR power as well as a theological power. Many Bishops, in early Europe, themselves held commital fiefs in a) their capacity as leaders of the church, or b) their capacity as lords, distinct from church rank, and were thus obliged to raise men-at-arms to fulfill their vassalage obligations to the king. All of which leads to the situation of Bishop Odo using a mace in battle to circumvent the Biblical injunction against the shedding of blood.Up until the Norman conquest IIRC, the church was the largest single land-holder in England. In Capetian France they also held very large lands - certainly larger than the demesne of the king (the monarchy was essentially restricted to the Ile de France). It would probably be true to say that during most of the Feudal period, the Church controlled a simple majority of all landed property in Christendom.Into this context must also be introduced the Holy Roman Empire - itself in essence the de facto rationalisation of the conquest of Rome by Germanic tribes (goths, franks et al). The HRE essentially adopted the mantle of the old roman empire, based on Charlemagnes conquest of, more or less, the whole of Europe. The conflicting needs of secular and ecclesiastic authority raised some serious questions as to the exact nature and role of the HRE - sometimes observed to be "neither holy nor roman nor an empire". Opportunist political divisions, and the rise of France as the most powerful of European states, lead to a major division in the church and brought about the "imprisonment" of the church in Avignon, and thus the simultaneous existance of a French pope there and an HRE-friendly pope in Rome.There are no "Anglo-Saxons", really. The term is meant to indicate a combination of Angle tribes and Saxon tribes, but really the Angles (and Jutes) are themselves Saxon tribes*. Saxon dominance was only ever local and shortlived - apart from the conquest of England, the Saxon homelands were brought under the heel of Charlemagne, and ceased to exist as independant entities.--Anyway, while the secualr authorities conducted most of the business of power, the Church itself wielded tremendous influence over these rulers. King Herny II's public penance for the murder of Thomas Beckett is instructive - he walked miles in a loincloth and lay on the ground to be whipped by priests, and promised 20 marks/annum to a leper hospital, which is still being paid to this day. This level of mortification - totally at odds with the normal dignity of a king - was necessary because even kings simply could not go around bumping off major figures in the church without risking a serious popular rebellion.* England has a long historiography of the "melting-pot society", a trope that seems now to be echoed in US self-perception.

Not exactly. My position is that bias has yet to be established. If the conclusions from science are based on bias then there must be some other conclusion that can be derived from the same set of facts. Since such conclusions are non-existant we cannot conclude that there is an interpretive bias.Adding additional, often hypothetical, constructs to the evidence can lead to different conclusions but unless those additional constructs are fact then you cannot consider the original conclusion biased. Even if you could show that the original conclusion was biased minus the addition of some facts you then would have to show that that original conclusion is still being held despite the facts. No. I am saying that, until bias can be shown, all the claim of bias is just whining about mainstream acceptance of ideas that one does not like. Where is the other interpretation of the same set of facts with a different bias? No creationist has ever demonstrated it ever. All creationists do is apply additional, often wrong, suppositions from which they draw their different conclusions. They don't ever explain anything in the context of the original conclusion in light of only the actual evidence. I very well may be wrong. But I cannot know until it can be shown that an alternative explanation for the evidence exists for a different bias. The hard part is that this alternative explanation must be about the exact same evidence. Simple. Innocent until shown guilty. As far as I know, no alternate explanation of the evidence exists so how can bias be shown? It is not my job to prove that I am not biased. If I am, it is the job of others to show that I am. So far this is lacking.

---

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

Hi LQ,You started with: I commented: Do you think anyone other than a creationist would suggest a different mechanism? No one has described one. What biases? What biases have been identified? That is one of the problems we haven't had them pointed out. It is true that an individual may be unable to see their own biases (like a fish may not notice the water) but that might be able to be overcome if they are pointed out.However, as noted above: scientists in general are not biased against the exitance of God (thanks Trixie for reminding us to point that out) and consider all the facts available which forces creationists to make up stories to arrive at a different conclusion.Separately from a different mechanism creationists could use the process of science to show a bias. They can take the evidence, review it offer unbiased (or differently biased) analysis and interpretations. If this analysis arrives at a different conclusion it might uncover a hidden bias by the current scientific community.

Hold off on this ok? Thanks.

True, the biases and/or presuppositions have not been delineated, except the "no God" one. I have read a 5 other articles on AIG that bring up the same idea about prejudice based on presuppositions. None of them say what those presuppositions are. I recently sent an email asking what they thought those presuppositions were and how they determined what they were. Their answers are usually slow in coming.Perhaps some of the creationist members can provide some help on identifying the beam in our eyes.

I would be interested in any results. I think we have put (or Trixie for one has) the "no god" one to bed. Does everyone agree? Shall I hold my breath?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-09-2005 14:53 AM

I've read through a couple of these posts and I think both sides are slightly confused what what a presupposition acually is. The dictionary give a sort of general definition so I'll try and define it in my own words and see if you guys agree. A presupposition is a statement which you not only believe to be true, but believe must be true. For example, the law of non-contradiction would usually be recognized as a presupposition. The statement "two opposing statements cannot both be true" is something that we believe must be true, for it can only be proven transcendentally. By that I mean, it proves itself; e.g., if one was to think the the opposite of the law of non-contradiction was true, and the law was false, he would already be assuming that the law was true to say say his view was true and the law of non-contradiction must be false. My point is, presuppositions are those statements which we assume to be true before comming to an argument, and don't look for proofs of them. However, it is very true that other presuppositions aren't as neat and universally accepted as the law of non-contradiction. Indeed, most people hold presuppositions that may be false, or that they may have just been taught and indoctrinated into by their parents or schools.
All people have presuppositions and infer all their positions from them in one way or another. In this sense we are bound by them. Yet, we may also change our presuppositions because they can be false. So in this sense, we are not bound.Now that we've gotten through that defining of our terms, and we won't all equivocate any longer, let's get to the meat of the subject: What are our presuppositions? Certainly they differ for each person, even though a small few are neat and universal. Some people assume Theism, some assume Materialism, and they base everything from those. However, some infer Theism and some infer Materialism, from even deeper presuppositions. What we must guard ourselves from doing is stereotyping. Not all Creationists assume Theism, and not all Darwinists assume Materialism. Though granted, some may in either party, and if they do they tend to argue with others with a completely closed mind and the argument never gets anywhere. So back to my previous point without running off on a tangent, what we must do is find out each person's true most basic presuppositions, see if those hold up, and see if their beliefs necessarily follow logically from those presuppositions. Don't you all agree?

---

The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.
-Mark Twain

Boy am I sorry I used presuppositions. That wasn't really the topic. Sorry about that.We have, I thought determeined that theism (of one sort or another) isn't the issue since many scientists are theists and Christians.The real question was:What are the biases that the vast majority of scientists have that are producing wrong conclusions in the interpretation of all the facts at hand and only the facts at hand?What alternative conclusions can be drawn with different bias (or none) that also use all and only the facts?

Well...actually if you read my definition...it's synonymous with a bias. At least I've always heard them used interchangably, maybe you've heard different. And really, you sort of asked the same question I did in a different way, so I think we're mostly on the same page. However, I would like to say that in that question you asked, you assumed that you knew what were the wrong conclusions. So what needs to be stressed is that we should start by discovering our biases/presuppositions, seeing if they are true, and then examining the evidence and see if what we think about other things follow logically from both the evidence and the presuppositions. The way you posed your question made it sound like we already "knew" what the correct view was and we just wanted to see why other people held the other view. Really, we don't already "know" what the right view is. If we all knew that, then why does this website even exist other than a tool of those "enlightened few" who are just trying to "enlighten" the others? Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I always thought science and logic was aimed at finding truth, not assuming our own view is true and just impressing it onto all who dissagree. If thats what this is all about, then why debate in the first place if no one is going to get anywhere. If this is not what your question was aiming at, and you do agree with me, do forgive my accusation.

---

The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.
-Mark Twain