|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3832 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
In many cases, the goal is just to show that a particular position is a reasonable position to hold. But it does not, in fact, show that. If you tell me that a reasonable man said X, then this convinces me that a reasonable man can say X, but it does not convince me that to say X is reasonable --- the general quality of the man does not imply that the same quality inheres in a specific statement that he made.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If quoting Darwin or Einstein is not an "appeal to authority" in this instance, then we need to better define "appeal to authority". I agree that it is not a logical fallacy, but how is it not an "appeal to authority"? I suppose because we take what a man says as the best evidence for what he thinks (unless, of course, his actions belie it) even if he is as dumb as a bag of hammers and crazy as a loon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Sorry, but I don't understand your reply. My question was how a quote of Darwin or Einstein is not an "appeal to authority", and I don't see how you've answered this. Because in the particular case under discussion the significance of their remarks does not rest on their authority, but simply on them being them. If Darwin said "I like strawberries", then this is evidence that Darwin liked strawberries. This has nothing to do with his status as a great naturalist; if Drooling Jock McStupid, three-times winner of the All-Scotland Idiocy Competition, said "I like strawberries", then that would equally be evidence that Drooling Jock McStupid likes strawberries. Authority doesn't come into it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
We show the credence of the premise by showing that things with information require designers. The only things we find with information in them are designed, which is not begging the question. Yes it is. It's assuming that they did not evolve instead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
If something has information, it has been put there by something mindful, an intelligent agency. (which self-evidently follows) You see, you're doing it again. It only "self-evidently follows" if you deny that the information was put there by evolution, which is what we're arguing about. Now another problem that this argument has is that it is false whenever we look at any particular bit of biological information. If we look at (for example) a rosebush, then we find that the information in it was produced by two other rosebushes mindlessly having sex. The argument from design rests on supposing that there was once an exception to this universally observed rule, and that at some point a rosebush was produced in the same sort of way that (for example) a CD was produced, rather than in the way that every rosebush we've ever seen was produced. The Argument From Design is not an inference from observation, because it involves fantasizing without evidence that a regularity in nature that we never see being broken was at some point broken.
Afterall that's why the evolutionist contingency have to cast doubts upon it being information. (You should read the book, called; In the Beginning was Information By Werner Gitt, to get a better understanding of the fullness of the argument from information. I have read Werner Gitt, and the words "fucking moron" are really the politest terms that I can think of to describe him. But if you want to discuss his nonsense, maybe this should be taken to another thread. There may already be one on which we could discuss this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Gitt's version of the argument from information then depends on using two different meanings of information. One is used when he wishes to say that DNA has information. The other is used when he wishes to say that information must have an intelligent source. This is equivocation. Yes. It's like defining lightning as "the effect produced when Thor wields his magic hammer Mjlnir". Then you point out that everyone agrees that lightning exists, so you've proved the existence of Thor. This isn't the only problem Werner Gitt has, but I think it's the most glaringly stupid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I am not dogmatic, but nobody has shown me any strictly logical reasons to give up the belief in information showing a designer. * coughs * Yes I have, namely that we often see it being produced without one. When it comes to living things, we invariably see it being produced without one. Who designed your genome? We know that it was produced by reproduction, recombination, and mutation, don't we?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity. What do you think of this quote? Is it accurate and honest? If Tipler said it, it's not entirely honest, since his blather about the Omega Point sounds about as much like Judeo-Christian theology as Alice in Wonderland.
According to Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, for the known laws of physics to be mutually consistent it is required that intelligent life take over all matter in the universe and eventually force the collapse of the universe. During that collapse the computational capacity of the universe diverges to infinity and environments emulated with that computational capacity last for infinite duration as the universe goes into a solitary-point cosmological singularity (with life eventually using elementary particles to directly compute on, due to the temperature's diverging to infinity), which singularity Tipler terms the Omega Point. With computational resources diverging to infinity, Tipler states that the far-future society will be able to resurrect the dead by perfectly emulating the entire multiverse from its start at the Big Bang. Tipler identifies the Omega Point final singularity as God since in his view the Omega Point has all the properties claimed for God by most of the traditional religions. Of course this has nothing to do with the Big Bang, the subject that you were originally trying to be wrong about, since Tipler is not claiming that God created the singularity at the beginning of time, but rather that God will be created by the singularity at the end of time. I leave it to you to judge for yourself how "Judeo-Christian" this idea is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You are not quoting Tipler and you do not identify who you are quoting. Perhaps you are trying to avoid the appeal to authority? Wikipedia, citing Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x.and Frank J. Tipler (1997). The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead. New York: Doubleday. pp. 560. ISBN 0385467982. If you prefer a quote from Tipler, this is from his website:
As science, the Omega Point Theory makes five basic claims about the universe: [...] (3) Life must eventually engulf the entire universe and control it, (4) the amount of information processed between now and the final state is infinite, (5) the amount of information stored in the universe diverges to infinity as the final state is approached. [...] I also argue that the ultimate future state of the universe, the Omega Point, should be identified with God. (Sorry, I just have to laugh at how ridiculous some of the claims here about appeal to authority. A quote is meaningless unless we know who said it and something about the person's background.) I'd have thought that knowing whether or not it was true would also be important. What really makes (for example) the statement E = mc2 "meaningful" --- the fact that a former patent clerk said it (there's your "something about the person's background") or the fact that it appears to be true?
I really don't know anything about Tipler. So ... what? You were hoping that your quotation had something to do with the Big Bang, perhaps?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
To be honest, I do not understand why the thread should even be controversial. Even Hawking admitted the big bang "smacked of divine intervention" which is why he turned his back on the big bang (a concept he helped to establish as the standard cosmology) to promote his contrived theory about an expanding universe which did not have a beginning - a theory which never caught on. You're making stuff up again, aren't you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Due to Granny Magda providing some evidence that Arthur Eddington may have been a life-long Quaker and not an atheist as is claimed on some websites, I have edited my original post to make this clear. It's considered bad form to edit a post after it's been replied to, especially if you're editing the particular bit that has been quoted and replied to. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Perhaps you did not get a chance to read my summation at Message 314 of the earlier thread. I quoted from Hawking's book A Brief History of Time and he talks about how he changed his mind regarding the big bang and now argues against it... No he doesn't. This is something that you have fabricated out of your vast bewildered incomprehension of what he's actually talking about. You haven't actually read A Brief History Of Time, have you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
In the last thread, someone challenged me to quote Stephen Hawking on the issue of the big bang and the idea of a Universe Designer or Creator God. I did not get a chance to provide that quote until the summation but you can find it in Message 314 of the thread Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God. Briefly, Hawking said the big bang "smacks of divine intervention." No, he said that other people used to think that it did. He himself does not think that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Clearly, Hawking is saying physicists don't like the big bang because it "smacks of divine intervention." He is saying that physicists other than him didn't like the Big Bang. He himself is famous as a proponent of the Big Bang, as you would know if you'd bothered to read A Brief History Of Time.
Hawking does not attempt to argue that it does not smack intervention. He accepts that it does ... Where does he "accept" this? Have you got an actual quotation from the book you didn't bother to read in which he says this thing that he never actually said? Here's something Hawking actually wrote: "The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started — it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You still have not bothered to read the quotes I provided in the summation in Message 314. If you had read the quotes, and I provide the page numbers where the quotes are found, you would not have said this. I'm not asking you to read Hawking's entire book, although that would be a good idea. Just start with the quotes I provided you, then go and read the book if you want. I have read the book. This is why I know that you are talking crap. You have not read the book. This is why you do not know that you are talking crap.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024