|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3863 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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: Let me put it more clearly, I hope - "everyone who can detect design or the supernatural in the universe have unscientific minds" would not be a concrete object even if it were true (it might be said to exist as an abstraction, but only that) But reification is mistaking an abstract entity for a concrete entity. That clearly is not what is going on in your example.
quote: And usually it is creationists and IDists who are guilty of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
You are quite wrong, sir. The fundamental point here is that I'm not making an argument: I'm making an observation.
If you can find any evidence to suggest that highlighting my opinion of your intent to disemble is an ad hom I will happily apologise and retract my comment. I also did not attack your intelligence: I highlighted you inability to debate scientifically (and there is evidence on this and other threads that you have been called on multiple times). Your inability to recognise the difference rather does the job for me, doncha think? I'll say a again: you've been caught out and you are trying to wriggle out of it to assuage your self esteem. This whole thread is your attempt at a saving throw.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi designtheorist
Let me be clear on this. Unsupported claims of multiple logical fallacies is nothing but an ad hominem attack. It is an attack against a person's intelligent or morality or both. Likewise, calling someone a liar is an ad hominem attack. Here's another one to consider: Page not found - Nizkor
quote: You can be subjected to a campaign of misinformation, posts about you with incorrect information or statements attributed to you. These are then used to discredit your arguments in later debates. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1
|
The Durbin quote you cite conflicts with Sandage's own description of his conversion. I have to side with Sandage over Durbin. Fine, have it from Sandage then;
quote: quote: quote: quote: As far as I can tell these quotes are in direct contradiction to the quote you cite. It seems to me that it was Sandage whose thinking on this issue was muddled. At any rate, this is quite clearly a far more ambiguous situation than you initially suggested, thus making your simplistic citation of Sandage as a Big Bang convert an appeal to a dubious authority.
By such reasoning every convert to Christianity or any other religion or nonreligion would be written off as worthless. I was only talking about those who clearly contradict themselves. {Although in my experience that's all of them...} But in point of fact, yes, such conversion anecdotes are wholly worthless as evidence for the existence of gods. They are a classic appeal to authority. These believers no more have evidence for gods than you or Sandage do. That makes their stories logically invalid and leaves anyone citing them guilty of an argument form authority. You have failed to deal with the underlying flaw in your argument; you are guilty of a classic fallacy. Until you address that, it doesn't matter how many Christian scientists you can name. By the way, I suppose it's too much to ask that you either back up or withdraw the accusations you made regarding "scientific" and "unscientific" minds and the imagined lack of religious scientists? Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DWIII Member (Idle past 1783 days) Posts: 72 From: United States Joined:
|
designtheorist writes:
You wrote a long comment but very little substance. I will address your statement here:
Why do you need authority figures to relay some "background about the science" in the first place? As far as I can tell, you are a very-well read individual, and therefore perfectly capable of expressing the relevant background in your own words, which is precisely what the writers of the popular literature had set out to do for themselves. Granted, the writers of the popular books also had the additional in-the-field scientific experience and data to draw from which you may think is not immediately available to you, but so what? This is where education comes into play: if you have a passion for the subject matter, you would recognize the need to learn about some of this stuff yourself by going into the peer-reviewed literature, or even basic textbooks. To misquote the world-famous literary supergiant William Shakespeare, "Get thee to a library.". Tell me, to what degree have you noticed the Nobel-Prize-winning scientists who write these books themselves engage in what you continue to do to the degree which you do it in spite of having been repeatedly called on it? Very little, if not none at all (unless it's one of those quote-mine bonanzas which regularly spew forth from the creationist/designist camp). An extended quote at the beginning of a chapter to introduce the subject matter, perhaps? A quote from the distant past when the scientific state-of-knowledge was in it's infancy? A humorous and yet relevant anecdote told by another scientist? These are not appeals to authority. Who would you turn to for information about the early moments of the big bang? A Nobel Prize winner in physics or someone who had visited a library?
I trust you are not attempting to pull a potential false dichotomy here. Even so, I think we can safely assume (for the time being) that any currently active Nobel-Prize-in-science winner is likely to be very much up to speed on the basics of his chosen field, which necessarily includes the type of freely-available library references which I mentioned.
If you have a problem with a particular quote I cited, show evidence why the quote was out of context or the speaker was in error. If you have nothing, say nothing.
You keep shifting the charges. You have cited oodles of quotes so far, some (not all) of which were out of context, and/or the speaker was in error, and/or you have badly misinterpreted what they were trying to say, and/or (even if none of the previous applied) you were setting them up as authoritative statements in the face of clear evidence that they were expressing what amounts to personal opinion.
Your question "to what degree have you noticed the Nobel-Prize-winning scientists who write these books themselves engage in what you continue to do to the degree which you do it?" confuses me. Are you talking about quoting other experts? If so, everyone quotes other experts, even experts. However, experts will quote less often because they ARE the experts. I am not a mathematical physicist. Tell me, why are you so determined not to learn from the experts? Lots of people pay lots of money to go to college and learn from these guys. Why do you seem to think they should not be quoted?
Has anybody here said that they should never be quoted??? The primary issue (and I haven't wavered from that) is the mis-use and/or abuse of quoted material; in particular authoritative reliance on the popular books that (even by the expert's occasional admission) were never intended to be used as primary source matter for any college course, let alone as legitimate scientific references. DWIII
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3863 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
I finally read through the Durbin paper and found this:
Initially, he expressed terrible surprise at this discovery when, in 1974, he and Tammann had enough reliable data to announce the fate and shape of the cosmos: expansion would continue forever; the universe is open (news item, Time 1974). The answer contradicted what he himself had long assumed, namely that the universe was closed and finite, likely to collapse back upon itself — a view that dominated cosmology in the early 70s and one itself likened to a theological position. But after some twenty years of research, Sandage had to conclude the opposite. Reality appeared otherwise to him. Perhaps this will help you. In 1974, Sandage (according to Durbin) came to a central realization about the big bang. It happened once and only once. His conversion to Christianity happened within two years of this realization. Do you see the connection now? Conversion sometimes take a little time. I am surprised it only took two years. Regarding the 1985 conference Durbin writes:"Sandage observed that the notion of a one-shot universe comes close to saying that this universe was created. It is unique. His tone, again, was both cautious and matter-of-fact -- as if he would like to avoid announcing the implications, but has no choice in the matter. Here is evidence for what can only be described as a supernatural event. There is no way to predict this in physics as we know it. It is truly supernatural, that is, outside our understanding of the natural order of things, and by this definition a miracle (Durbin 1985)." Again, he is talking about the big bang and the fact it only happened once. Sandage says it is the work of the supernatural. There can be no question that the big bang played a central role in Sandage's conversion experience. It started him down the journey. Durbin again "Sandage asserts that the scientist cannot, thereby, affirm religious belief. Knowledge of the creation is not knowledge of the creator, he said in a published interview that same year." There is nothing odd about Sandage's statement. Knowledge of the creation does not tell you much about the creator or designer. In the previous thread I showed that logic tells us the designer/creator has to be immaterial and timeless. But that is all it tells us, certainly not enough to form any type of religious conviction or conversion. Durbin does not discuss the fact Sandage was ethnically Jewish. Why doesn't he mention that? Why doesn't he discuss how difficult it is for a Jewish person to convert to Christianity and turn from his family? Durbin does not discuss the fact Sandage described himself as a "practicing atheist" or "practical atheist" or words to that effect? Why not? Durbin appears to have an agenda. He wants to present one view of Sandage's conversion apart from all of the other facts. Durbin does quote Sandage liberally from an unpublished interview he did with him in 1990: I don’t think you’ll find God unless you seek God; and for me seeking God involved the question of why rather than simply how, what and when, which is all that science is about (Sandage 1990)." This is an important quote. Sandage would not have been forced to ask "why" had the big bang not already provided the how, what and when. Durbin also quotes Sandage saying the laws of physics themselves are mysteries (Sandage 1990). This quote and similar quotes by other scientists deserve their own thread. It is clear I used the Sandage quotes in their proper historical context. I now consider the matter closed. It is time to return to the issue of this thread - logical fallacies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3863 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
You keep shifting the charges. You have cited oodles of quotes so far, some (not all) of which were out of context, and/or the speaker was in error, and/or you have badly misinterpreted what they were trying to say, and/or (even if none of the previous applied) you were setting them up as authoritative statements in the face of clear evidence that they were expressing what amounts to personal opinion. This is another bald and unsupported assertion. Granny Magda is the only one, as far as I know, to have provided any evidence that a quote was out of historical context. I missed it in the first thread, but have responded in depth here. In one case, it appears Granny Magda may be correct. In another, I stand my ground. We may have to agree to disagree on the issue but it seems very clear to me that the big bang played a central role in the conversion of Allan Sandage. I have seen zero evidence from you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
DT writes: ...or an Argument From Popularity perhaps? We have discussed the argument from authority quite a bit. In my opinion, this is different. This is not an argument from one authority but from a number of scientists who have reached this decision independently. I prefer to call it an argument from the history of science.quote:(I am not sure what you call an argument that concludes a proposition to be true because a few people believe it. An Argument From Lack of Popularity?) But anyway, your repeated examples of supposed conversions are not going to get you anywhere.Half of them are quote-mined and what you have left is anecdotal evidence which requires you to switch between an argument from authority and an argument from popularity. If I was to produce a matching list of scientists that were not converted by the Big Bang theory, would it counter your claims?If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
designtheorist writes: You ask if the source describing Eddington as an atheist might be creationist. Yes, but that doesn't mean the source is wrong. No, of course the source being creationist doesn't mean it's wrong. Just a lucky guess by me, right? Concerning quote mining, I haven't seen any particularly bad quote mining examples from you in this thread. We agree about the definition of quote mining, so maybe I shouldn't have replied to your response to Granny Magda, but you didn't reply to my Message 121 and so left me kind of hanging. I'm focused on the fallacy of argument from authority because, as far as I can tell, you still have the definition wrong.
The rest of the evidence is in the form of logic... You use logic to reason from evidence. Proper reasoning from good evidence leads to conclusions likely to be true. Reason doesn't produce evidence. I'm not sure if this fallacy has a name, but it should. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: In the previous thread you failed to show that there was a designer/creator as opposed to a non-personal cause. Also your argument that the cause was timeless: a) Rested on the controversial assumption (even among experts) that no time preceded the Big Bang. Note that at least one alternative view was expressed in the thread. b) This same assumption undermined your argument that the universe had a cause and you were unable to address it. So, in fact, the situation was NOT resolved by the time the thread was over, nor has there been further discussion to resolve it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Would now be a good time to mention how a certain physicist, upon my mentioning of a certain paper by Tipler, replied that he no longer trusted anything written by Tipler
Would that count as the fallacy of appealing to the popular poisoning of the authority?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3863 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
I don't mind you jumping in to the conversation with Granny Magda at all. I'm sorry if I did not see or respond to an earlier comment by you. My approach to responding is rather haphazard. Sometimes I start at the end of the thread, sometimes at the beginning. And sometimes I just run out of time. My wife already thinks I spend too much time on here.
My comment regarding "evidence in the form of logic" was poorly worded. The evidence we start with is the fact the singularity is a mathematical concept not a physical concept, meaning the singularity cannot exist in an infinitely hot and infinitely dense but unexpanding state for any period of time. It is an idea I see promoted by some but has no justification in the field of physics. Once the singularity came into existence, it began to expand. This understanding forms the premise and leads inexorably to the idea of a creator who is outside of spacetime. The only way to avoid the existence of such a creator is to hold to another view of the beginning of the universe, such as colliding branes - a view for which there is zero observational support. Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3863 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
Actually, this thread is about logical fallacies. However, if you want to private message me who said that, I would love to know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:I heard Tipler speak about his "omega point" ideas more than a decade ago, and had the same impression that you did. In the Q&A time I asked him if he saw a way to reconcile this impersonal omega-point idea with a personal Judaeo-Christian God, and he couldn't any more than I could. I have not yet read his "Physics of Christianity", so I don't know how his views have changed in the last decade. But they may have changed substantially, especially if he now calls himself a "Christian"."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024