Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Crop circles and intelligent design
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 90 of 150 (619280)
06-09-2011 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Straggler
05-26-2011 5:42 PM


Re: cereal goblins?
Weak 'positive' evidence for Human ONLY formed crop circles:
We don't have any evidence except that it is possible to replicate simple crop circles with a plank and board approach.
ID:
How is the above claim any different to "evolution could NOT have happened because..." ?
Credance:
If there is no evidence at all (one way or another) then I give everything equal scientific validity regardless of my personal opinion as to the liklihood.
It has, in the past, been the 'impossible' answer that turned out to be closest to the truth.
I would likely rank my investigation order based upon personal opinion ... but that's not the same as ruling something out just because it seems incredible.
Farting cows would figure quite low on my list ... but if I end up ruling out everything above them ...
To me, science is not about opinion or credibility it's about evidential support for a stated potential explanation. By evidential support I mean accumulated failure to refute.
In my opinion the following is not evidence against a potential explanation:
1) Finding a method of doing something some other way.
2) Evidence in favour of a different potential explanation.
3) Lack of positive evidence.
What is evidence against a potential explanation is:
1) Refutation of some or all of a potential explanation via direct evidence.
If we accept 'unlikihood' as evidence against one thing, we must accept it across the board.
Since there are many areas (ID being one) where we reject 'unlikihood' as sufficient, we cannot accept it anywhere else either without being hypocrytical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Straggler, posted 05-26-2011 5:42 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Straggler, posted 06-16-2011 2:09 PM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 91 of 150 (619287)
06-09-2011 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Modulous
05-26-2011 7:36 PM


Re: bogeymen hiding in the unfalsifiable corner
Fact:
If no-one knows that doesn't make something not a fact -- it makes it unknown ... until and unless it is observed.
Not knowing is a perfectly logical and honest approach to something. It says neither that one thinks it to be true, nor that they think it false it simply does what it says on the tin.
Baby Rabbits:
So you are a creationist then ? That's the only way that ALL baby rabbits come from other rabbits.
At least one (possibly two) must have come from some rabbit-like-yet-not-quite-a-rabbit at some time in the past or evolution is false.
The evidence for rabbits coming from rabbits is a little more detailed and direct than that (especially nowadays with DNA sequencing and the like).
The only 'evidence' for all crop circles being the creations of humans is:
1) The few that we KNOW how they were made, were made ny humans.
2) It seems unlikely to many that it could have been anything else.
Rabbits Vs Crop Circles (probably quite approraite at that):
The difference is the type of evidence.
Since all we have is a desire for all crop circles to be human, and some crop circles being known (video evidence or whatever) to be the work of humans we HAVE to express the tentativity.
With rabbits we have a lot of direct physical evidence so we need express that tentativity much less if at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Modulous, posted 05-26-2011 7:36 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Modulous, posted 06-09-2011 12:10 PM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 92 of 150 (619298)
06-09-2011 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by AZPaul3
05-26-2011 11:25 PM


Re: Evidenced Speculation
Alien Life:
Not going there -- as requested ... well maybe just a little.
There is a possibility that alien life exists within our galaxy, even though we have not yet found any.
'absence of evidence ...':
In what way can that be misinterpreted or abused?
Having no evidence for something does not, logically or otherwise, allow one to claim that that 'whatever' does not exist.
Crop Circles:
What hard evidence of human manufacture?
That a handful of crop circles have been created by humans?
Is that ALL the evidence?
'No Reasonable chain ...'
Here's a chain:
Alien life is a possibility.
Alien life more advanced technologically than humans is a possibility.
Alien life visiting earth is a possibility.
Aliens making designs in crops is a possibility.
Note: I say possibility to point to not being able to rule it out in such a casual manner rather than to say 'it's so!'
Being 'scientifically inclined' surely means being led by objective evidence rather than subjective belief systems -- and more importantly to being comfortable with saying 'I don't know.'
Why is the idea that aliens make crop circles so widely ridiculed?
ID:
With ID we rule it out by refuting the claims of 'proof' presented by the suggusters ... not by saying there's more supporting evidence for evolution than for ID.
We look at the claims made for ID and rule them out.
That's not what happens with crop circles or bigfoot or the loch-ness monster or Alien spacecraft .... but why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by AZPaul3, posted 05-26-2011 11:25 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by AZPaul3, posted 06-09-2011 7:54 PM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 95 of 150 (619513)
06-10-2011 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Modulous
06-09-2011 12:10 PM


Re: bogeymen hiding in the unfalsifiable corner
Facts:
Possibly just a definition thing, but why does discovery determine whether something is fact or not?
When people believed that the earth was the centre of the solar system was a helio-centric colar system not fact? It was just not known.
In those days I expect that there were many people who would say 'But the idea of a helio-centric solar system is too ludicrous an idea to even consider.' ... and it was only a few 'heretics' who chose to investigate.
Ruling things out because you have not looked for the evidence, or even not found the evidence is not scientific IMO.
Rabbits:
You stated that because we have only seen rabbits come of rabbits, then all rabbits must have come that way.
But we (who accept evolutionary theory) already know that cannot have always been the case.
So it's either a poor analogy, or the thinking behind the counter-point is not quite right.
No crop Circle ...
How do you know that?
Has anyone tried to duplicate an existing crop circle? Particularly one of some complexity?
Are there common features across 'unknown origin' crop circles that are consistent, but inconsistent with 'defo human-made' crop circles?
Web searches come up with reported crop circles numbering to around 10,000 with confirmed human manufacture (year-on-year) between 20% and 90%. Dunno how reliable that is though.
Conjurors:
I'm sure there are several techniques available for pulling rabbits from hats.
I strongly doubt that any conjurors really perform magic (or have technology so advanced as to be indistinguishable from magic).
But I don't know that. It is not a scientific conclusion, it is a popular conclusion.
In everyday conversation there is little point in expressing our tentativity.
In scientific discussion it should be addressed. Even if it's just a confidence level in a conclusion.
Graffiti and Other Art:
I suppose it IS about confidence levels, since the apparent process for those other art works is entirely consistent with known processes, and the works are more often than not signed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Modulous, posted 06-09-2011 12:10 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2011 9:40 AM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 96 of 150 (619515)
06-10-2011 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by AZPaul3
06-09-2011 7:54 PM


Re: Evidenced Speculation
"If there is no evidence, direct or indirect, then a speculation is worthless and not worthy of any consideration."
I have to strongly disagree with the above.
Often there are many items presented as evidence, which are discounted as being too ludicrous. That's not absence of evidence, that's denial of evidence (unless properly refuted) in the same way that a YEC would claim hydrodynamic sorting for the layering of fossils, or the super-fast fiat lux for the apparent distance to the galactic centre.
Indirect evidence is still evidence, it's just less reliable.
Alien life = viable = OK.
Technolgical Life = questionable:
Why so? The earth is a relatively young planet in a young solar system. If we accept that there could be life elsewhere in the galaxy, we also have to accept that some of that life emerged before life on earth.
Given a natural process (evolution) we cannot suppose that a planet capable of supporting life would NOT generate intelligent life (humans are not special, nor the pinaccle of creation after all), and if that intelligence emerged prior to 'humanity on earth' there is no reason to think that it would not have technolgies in advance of our own.
"Alien visits to Earth have no evidence, direct or indirect, and our present knowledge of physics precludes a viable possibility"
Except of course for all those eye-witnesses and abductees -- oh but I forgot, all of that gets ruled out due to incredulity. Sorry.
And there's the MoD conclusions that UFO's represent a real and present threat to national security (OK, OK, so they might be a foreign power with hi-tech spy planes).
But I'm just trying to point out that 'no evidence' is not the case. 'Credible evidence'? Maybe a different matter, but incredulity is never a reasonable position.
"Because it's bullshit."
OK. But why?
"Exactly. There is no evidence, direct or indirect, to maintain the speculation. And the evidence we do have contradicts the proposition. There is no viable reason to give it any consideration."
Yes. Its has been considered and refuted -- not ruled out simply because it sounds ridiculous.
"I beg to differ. These are un-evidenced speculations like unicorns and flatulant cosmic cows, in the same boat as ID, and are worthy of no consideration, just like ID."
The evidence presented is about the unknown process that creates the crop circles, and how humans cannot exactly duplicate the 'real' phenomenon.
If this all gets properly refuted then fine ... but just saying it isn't so is not scientific.
It's also not evidence of alien intervention ... but it is put forward as evidence of non-human origin that the asks "Well who or what then?"
Maybe it's some natural process .... I mean complexity and geometry are not markers for intelligent design after all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by AZPaul3, posted 06-09-2011 7:54 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by AZPaul3, posted 06-10-2011 2:09 PM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 101 of 150 (619935)
06-13-2011 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Modulous
06-10-2011 9:40 AM


Re: bogeymen hiding in the unfalsifiable corner
Fact:
So it was a definition thing: i.e. you define a 'fact' as a piece of evidenced knowledge rather than as an objective 'truth'.
Unfalsifiable:
So if someone presented a falsifiable theory of alien crop circle manufature, that would be OK?
Pedantry:
I think not. You stated, as undeniable fact, a conclusion which was, in fact, inocorrect no matter what stance you take on 'creation'.
You did so because you did NOT consider any other aspect of the example prior to stating the erroneous 'fact' ... which is what I've been complaining about.
Rabbits:
The answer is clearly qualified with a 'state of knowledge' and 'tenatativity' ... which again is all I've asked for.
Replication of Crop Circles:
Do you have an references to support that claim?
Features of 'real' crop circles:
There are some, but I don't know how reliable the source is.
20% of rabbits are known to be born of rabbits:
I see what you mean ... not made that level of observation. So why do we believe THAT then?
A popular conclusion is one drawn from 'common sense' which is guided by societal norms and acceptability.
Hedging:
Then when presenting human-only-crop circles we have already included the tentativity ... so I'm happy.
Graffiti:
Anonymous in that we don't know the person (sometimes), but signed none-the-less by virtue of it's style.
I am of course thinking of starting an Alien Graffitti web-site now though ....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2011 9:40 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Modulous, posted 06-14-2011 4:01 AM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 103 of 150 (620118)
06-14-2011 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by AZPaul3
06-10-2011 2:09 PM


Re: Evidenced Speculation
Don't get me started in the Pyramids!!
Technological Life:
Technological life developed on Earth. We therefore must conclude that tech-life is a possible consequence of (well for me) natural evolutionary processes.
Given the size and age of the galaxy (never mind the universe) it is far less likely that no other tech-life has emerged than that it hasn't.
Mankind is in no way special (even amongst the creatures of earth).
I appreciate that the coincidence of tech-life's depends on it's actual rarity (which we do not know), but it makes it somewhat more than 'weak' in the inference stakes.
Anecdote Vs. Eye-Witness
Human testimony IS unreliable, and just as fallible as the conclusions that otherwise intelligent people draw from limited evidence.
The thing about eye-witness accounts that increases credibillity is multiple, independant corroboration. The problem is when non-objective criterion get involved and all the debunking starts. When looked at, the alternate 'sciencey' explanations are more far fetched than a straightforward 'that's what happened' one.
OK as for alien encouters ... not sure, but there are features of stories dating back centuries that match up ina slightly unsettling way.
UFO's ... well they ARE real ... UNIDENTIFIED being the operative word, but there is not a government on earth that hasn't conceded that there are sightings which have not been explained.
Hang on ... I think I said I wouldn't go there ....
Conspiracy Theory:
Governments cannot keep secrets -- and they know it.
That's why they let loose the loons along with the genuine article
"Someone has evidence of this "unknown" process? Really? Where?"
http://www.openminds.tv/crop-circle-science-101/
Cannot warrant the informational content, but there are some observations that are not consistent with plank-and-board manufacturing techniques.
Also have you ever looked at the photos of a plank-and-board crop circle compared to an un-explained one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by AZPaul3, posted 06-10-2011 2:09 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by AZPaul3, posted 06-15-2011 11:01 PM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 104 of 150 (620140)
06-14-2011 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Modulous
06-14-2011 4:01 AM


Re: tentative nature of stated conclusions
That whole rabbit thing was the point:
You STARTED by stating it as fact. Then, when offered some extra considerations, you modified it to include the tenativity (that was already implied of course) and THEN reduced the scope to make the statement conform to the defintion of fact that you are using.
All of which is good so far as I am concerned.
None of which appears to be happening wrt crop circles so far as I can see.
I'm not trying to proove 'alien's did it' I'm simply trying to impress that 'human's did it' is not as near prooved as appears to be being presented.
Much like with the rabbit thing.
I'll look at the link later on -- feel like a rabbit with a pocket watch at the moment

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Modulous, posted 06-14-2011 4:01 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Modulous, posted 06-15-2011 3:37 AM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 110 of 150 (620855)
06-21-2011 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Modulous
06-15-2011 3:37 AM


Re: tentative nature of stated conclusions
Rabbits:
OK -- my mistake.
My main point was that you rushed to that conclusion without full consideration and then had to amend what you said to justify the conclusion.
You did this by bounding the conclusion.
We likely have better than 20% for rabbit generation though, since there are likely to be numerous genetic studies that point to natural-norn-inheritance. I don't know that for 100% fact though.
"It is as proved as"
terrestrial books are written by human authors"
Confidence level 98% (We have direct knowledge of many authors and their works, and no reason to suspect their humanity).
"raindrops fall from clouds"
50% (They may originate in clouds, but depending on your precise dfinition of rain drop some fall from gutters etc. or other objects upon which they alight briefly).
"terrestrial poems are composed by human poets"
85% (see books and take some off since many ancient texts are poems rather than books).
"terrestrial crop circles are made by human pranksters/artists."
20% (The highest level of 'proof' we actually have is heresay, but there are some which have been filmed in action ... and 20% may be too high on that basis).
I don't think that the origin of crop circles is anywhere near as clear cut as many people seem to think. I stress that I'm not out to 'proove' alien intervention ... just to point out that there is more to the claim that all crop circles were made by humans than scientific conclusion with tentativity .... there IS a political aspect.
People who report seeing 'aliens' or even 'UFOs' are immediately disbelieved and convoluted explanations brought forward for what might have 'really' happened.
But why?
As a race, are humans scared of the possibilities and so ridicule anyone who puts forward the idea?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Modulous, posted 06-15-2011 3:37 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Modulous, posted 06-21-2011 12:18 PM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 111 of 150 (620857)
06-21-2011 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by AZPaul3
06-15-2011 11:01 PM


Re: Evidenced Speculation
Intelligent doesn't necessarily mean human, surely?
The article on the 'oddities' of evidence says they looked within the circles and took samples from outside at increasing radius (or was that another site I was reading??).
These are features which don't appear in plank-and-board crop circles suggesting that some OTHER method was used.
Curiously I say some swirled, flattened grass in an unoccupied paddock next to one of my horse's paddock recently ... not a pattern or anything, but unlikely to have been done by a human since there was no track to or from the site. Odd wind effect maybe??
Maybe there's an errant storm god drawing piccies ... some of them are Egyptian I read somewhere
The thing about the indepenence of eye-witnesses is, of course, used in court rooms (it's all about the win after all, not the truth).
But for the abduction cases there are similarities between people who have never met -- and whose stories were compiled before it became popular to be abducted ... so maybe it's just a natural figment-of-the-imagination-gene that generates the same stuff -- really don't know and am wandering off to that territory I was steering clear of again....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by AZPaul3, posted 06-15-2011 11:01 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 112 of 150 (620860)
06-21-2011 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Straggler
06-16-2011 2:09 PM


Re: ALL Conceivable Causes
If one starts from a conclusion, then only looks for support of that conclusion (i.e. positive evidence) one is not being scientific.
What is the 'falsifiability' of human created crop-circles?
What features could we look for to refute the claim?
I would suggest that there are none ... making human-crop-circles-are-the-only-ones unfalsifiable in itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Straggler, posted 06-16-2011 2:09 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Modulous, posted 06-21-2011 12:22 PM Peter has replied
 Message 122 by Straggler, posted 06-23-2011 8:13 PM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 115 of 150 (621006)
06-22-2011 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Modulous
06-21-2011 12:18 PM


Re: tentative nature of stated conclusions
I understand falsification leading to a modified theory.
When I was referring to convoluted explanations I was referring to alien abduction tales.
My question at the end is perhaps the most on topic I've been for a bit. Is the reason that we discount some possibilities more to do with fear that they have merit or is it purely on th evidence?
There are, of course, two groups:
1) Most people :- they discount ideas without looking at the evidence so there must be something else informing their credibility limit.
2) Scientists :- they still have their own credibility limits, but hopefully are trained to be open minded. However, and this is where my political comment comes from, most also rely on their reputations to bring in research funding ... so giving any kind of credence to odd ideas is ruled out for the reason that it has been rejected by (1) above.
Perhaps if Galileo had adopted that stance he would have stayed out of jail ... and it would have been even more years before we figured out our place in the solar system.
I accept that one cannot investigate an unfalsifiable proposition.
I also, however, reject any refutation based solely upon support for a completely different theory.
And, of course, you cannot refute something which is unfalsifiable ...
Summarise my on-topic bit:
Acceptance of human-only-crop-circles (HOCC) with the anecdotal and very weak evidence that we have is akin to accepting the statements made by IDists.
The evidence in either case does not stand up well to scrutiny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Modulous, posted 06-21-2011 12:18 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Coyote, posted 06-22-2011 11:26 AM Peter has replied
 Message 121 by Modulous, posted 06-22-2011 12:47 PM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 117 of 150 (621008)
06-22-2011 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Modulous
06-21-2011 12:22 PM


Re: ALL Conceivable Causes
None of that is a falsification of the claim.
To falsify the claim we, surely, need to make predictions about the nature of human-made crop circles, then look for crop circles that do NOT match those predictions.
Even if I saw an alien drawing (?) a crop circle I can only conclude that THAT crop circle was made by the alien ... but that is sufficient when the claim is 'some are made by ...'
When the claim is 'All are made by...' we surely require a better standard of prediction.
If we cannot make predictions about the nature of human-made-crop-circles then the claim is, by definition, unfalsifiable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Modulous, posted 06-21-2011 12:22 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Modulous, posted 06-22-2011 11:41 AM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 118 of 150 (621009)
06-22-2011 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Coyote
06-22-2011 11:26 AM


Re: tentative nature of stated conclusions
Both are equally weak.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Coyote, posted 06-22-2011 11:26 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Coyote, posted 06-22-2011 11:43 AM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


(1)
Message 123 of 150 (623129)
07-08-2011 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Modulous
06-22-2011 11:41 AM


Falsifications...
"The prediction that stems from the theory 'all crop circles are made by humans' would be that for any crop circle where we can identify the maker, it will turn out to be human. This can be shown to be in error if we were to able identify a non-human maker"
But that's insufficient, surely?
Since you have reduced your demand for evidence to a sub-set of the phenomena, you may as well have said 'All crop circles which we can identify as made by humans, are made by humans'.
That is, the above 'prediction' is insufficient for scientific investigation.
If we do NOT have a set of features in crop circles by which we can identify them as human made, without a confession (which we have no way of verifying) then the theory is unfalsifiable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Modulous, posted 06-22-2011 11:41 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Modulous, posted 07-09-2011 7:27 PM Peter has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024