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: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 331 of 344 (642375)
11-28-2011 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by designtheorist
11-28-2011 12:40 AM


Re: Reply to Trixie - #301
The quote I cited appeared on page 46 of A Brief History of Time. Hawking writes:
"Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention. (The Catholic Church, on the other hand, seized on the big bang model and in 1951 officially pronounced it to be in accordance with the Bible.) There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang."
If someone looks at that passage alone, Hawking is clearly speaking of other people. However, in the larger context it is clear Hawking does not disagree with this assessment. Hawking never argues that this opinion is in error. In fact, by 1988 Hawking had "changed his mind" about the big bang and the beginning of time so he could avoid the appearance of divine intervention.
"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? Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 140-141.
Uh ... but both these quotes are from the same book. Are you going to claim that he "changed his mind" between page 46 and page 140, but couldn't be bothered to go back and revise page 46? If not, what are you blithering on about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 12:40 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(3)
Message 332 of 344 (642381)
11-28-2011 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by designtheorist
11-28-2011 12:40 AM


Re: Reply to Trixie - #301
Finally you seem to get it! You said;
designtheorist writes:
The quote I cited appeared on page 46 of A Brief History of Time. Hawking writes:
"Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention. (The Catholic Church, on the other hand, seized on the big bang model and in 1951 officially pronounced it to be in accordance with the Bible.) There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang."
If someone looks at that passage alone, Hawking is clearly speaking of other people
So you agree that in the quote you originally supplied, which was only the first sentence of the above quote, Hawking is clearly speaking about how other people felt about the BB. Therefore using that single sentence (and that's all you used previously) to describe what Hawking thinks is a logical fallacy, i.e., it doesn't say what you initially claimed it says and you now agree that the initial sentence says absolutely nothing about how he felt.
designtheorist writes:
If Hawking did not agree with the assessment, he would not have changed his opinion about the big bang and introduced his view of the "no boundary universe" or his other views on cosmology.
So now your evidence to support your opinion that Hawking agrees that the BB "smacks of divine intervention" is that Hawking continued his work, that he integrated quantum mechanics into the theory of gravity. There's a logical fallacy in there somewhere. As PaulK pointed out, Hawking himself says
...what the singularity theorems really indicate is that quantum gravitational effects become important: classical theory is no longer a good description of the universe. So one has to use a quantum theory of gravity to discuss the early stages of the universe.
So Hawking himself states that he included a quantum theory of gravity because classical theory doesn't describe the universe in these earlier stages. Nothing in there about removing a creator. It's entirely possible that his motivation was to improve his model, rather than to remove the possibility of a creator.
You are using your speculation on his motives and calling it evidence to support your speculation and there's something circular about that.
designtheorist writes:
In order for you to convince me I am using the quotes (please do not select one quote in isolation) out of context
You didn't just say that? The whole point of my post to you was that you selected a single quote and used it to bolster your opinion with no regard for context or comprehension!! You're the one who used a single quote! So don't go preaching to the converted.
designtheorist writes:
In order for you to convince me I am using the quotes (please do not select one quote in isolation) out of context, you will have to show me where Hawking disagrees with the view the big bang "smacks of divine intervention." I have looked for such a passage and cannot find one.
I can't find a single passage where he agrees that the BB "smacks of divine intervention". He says nothing about what he thinks of the idea. Neither can I find a single passage which tells us that the moon isn't made of green cheese, nor can I find a single passage which says the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a myth so by your logic we now know that Hawking thinks that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real and the moon is made out of out of green cheese.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 12:40 AM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 2:33 PM Trixie has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 333 of 344 (642384)
11-28-2011 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by designtheorist
11-28-2011 12:40 AM


Re: Reply to Trixie - #301
A thread nominally about logically fallacies is almost entirely focused on interpreting a quote mined appeal to authority.....
Anyway....
dt writes:
In fact, by 1988 Hawking had "changed his mind" about the big bang and the beginning of time so he could avoid the appearance of divine intervention.
So as far as you are concerned Hawking is out to deny God and that is why he put forward the no-boundary hypothesis? Let's look more fully at what Hawking has said.
Hawking writes:
Many scientists were still unhappy with the universe having a beginning because it seemed to imply that physics broke down. One would have to invoke an outside agency, which for convenience, one can call God, to determine how the universe began.
Hawking writes:
There are two attitudes one can take to the results of Penrose and myself. One is to that God chose how the universe began for reasons we could not understand. This was the view of Pope John Paul. At a conference on cosmology in the Vatican, the Pope told the delegates that it was OK to study the universe after it began, but they should not inquire into the beginning itself, because that was the moment of creation, and the work of God. I was glad he didn't realize I had presented a paper at the conference suggesting how the universe began. I didn't fancy the thought of being handed over to the Inquisition, like Galileo.
The other interpretation of our results, which is favored by most scientists, is that it indicates that the General Theory of Relativity breaks down in the very strong gravitational fields in the early universe. It has to be replaced by a more complete theory. One would expect this anyway, because General Relativity does not take account of the small scale structure of matter, which is governed by quantum theory.
Link
So - Yes - Some people (most notably Hoyle) did have an objection to the Big Bang as a a theory because they thought it smacked of "divine intervention" or somesuch.
But Hawking himself was (when he met the pope in 1986) advocating BB theory, pointing out that the basis for BB theory (General Relativity) breaks down at a certain point and writing papers about the possible origins of the universe as well. None of which is really compatible with your assertions about Hawking and his views.
From the same link:
Hawking writes:
Although the singularity theorems of Penrose and myself, predicted that the universe had a beginning, they didn't say how it had begun. The equations of General Relativity would break down at the singularity. Thus Einstein's theory cannot predict how the universe will begin, but only how it will evolve once it has begun.
See?
It's about creating a theory that works and which doesn't break down. God (whatever one means by that term anyway) is, at best, a side issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 12:40 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 334 of 344 (642487)
11-29-2011 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by designtheorist
11-28-2011 12:17 AM


Re: Reply to Percy
If a Universe Designer or Creator God exists, he or she did not begin to exist so there is no need for a cause.
This assertion would need to be backed up with evidence.
The only cause available is something which exists outside of space and time - a Universe Designer or Creator God.
You would also need to show that the only possible cause is a supernatural deity. You would need to rule out non-deistic causes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 12:17 AM designtheorist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by mike the wiz, posted 11-29-2011 1:49 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 335 of 344 (642488)
11-29-2011 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by designtheorist
11-28-2011 12:40 AM


Re: Reply to Trixie - #301
If someone looks at that passage alone, Hawking is clearly speaking of other people. However, in the larger context it is clear Hawking does not disagree with this assessment. Hawking never argues that this opinion is in error. In fact, by 1988 Hawking had "changed his mind" about the big bang and the beginning of time so he could avoid the appearance of divine intervention.
I am sure that Galileo would agree that the Sun rising in the East and setting in the West smacks of Geocentrism. In fact, I am sure that Galileo tweaked his conclusions to avoid Geocentrism.
The point being is that you are trying to get someone to say something with which they disagree. The point that Hawkings is trying to make is that the BB does smack of creationism, but that is as wrong as the rising and the setting of the Sun smacking of Geocentrism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 12:40 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 336 of 344 (642510)
11-29-2011 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Trixie
11-25-2011 2:08 PM


Re: Writing in Science
Trixie writes:
Without critical thinking and applying logic correctly, scientists would lead themselves up the garden path and it would become evident in their data. I think your description of a B.S. detector inherent in science and scientists is accurate.
This is why I usually prefer operational science.
With a claim as LARGE as macro-evolution, logically speaking, you are stating something very, very great.
I disagree that scientists all proceed logically, I am not convinced that perfect objectivity is born out.
For example, falsification evidence is found, concerning the ToE, which should logically be regarded as highly important to the vague claim that all and every extant and extinct organism stemmed from the first organism through common ancestry.
Such a massive claim, can never be logically "proved" or called, a "fact", because of the potential non sequitur. From what Zen Deist said, we know that a theory proceeds as a fallacious illogical suggestion, this is why the theory can only be "viable" through confirmation evidence, with a very heavy logical emphasis upon the falsification evidence. This is because inductive reasoning is flawed. Even if you find a million birds that can't fly, that will not prove that birds can't fly. Only 100% of all birds in existence will push you into the realms of deductive certainty.
The tollens produces bricks, the ponen produces feathers.
The main argument from the mainstream evolutionists, seems to be that because they have a hundred thousand feathers, that this proves something, but when we find pollen in the Pre-Cambrian or preserved amber deposits in the carbiniforous, then these falsifications represent maybe the weight of a high-rise building. Therefore, tollens-falsification, even one piece, will trump thousands upon thousands of feathers, simply because the claim of the ToE is so very astoundingly great, LOGICALLY speaking. The greater the claim, (and this is the biggest claim ever), the greater the evidence must be.
The science of evolution, the facts, the experiments, the sophistication compared to creationism, is brilliant, but unfortunately, scientists don't seem to realize that logically this does not matter in the least in a logical context.
Therefore the truly rational and logical person is not obliged to favour a particular theory, even if they do not support a competing theory.
There are some that take an ultra-logical approach, believing that a lack of evidence is what is most important. I.e. What we do not know.
I think, as a person of logic, that what we do not know is nearly always more important than what we do know. When it comes to origins, it is not a non sequitur, to say that X is X. (Law of identity), because we are simply stating a reality.
Therefore macro-evolution, even if it was the most proven of all theories, would LOGICALLY have the burden of proof upon it. It always will, because reality dictates what is true - that X is essentially X.
I do not have to prove that humans will produce humans over time, because they simply do, but you as evolutionary scientists have to prove that they don't, and you can't prove that they don't, logically, as it is not possible according to the notation of logic, therefore you can only evidence that they don't over time.
Unfortunately, this is not a matter of intellect, it is a matter of the heart. Scientists are still human. I have read scientific information, which assumes the truth of macro-evolution, instead of concentrating upon the topic in hand.
I think macro-evolution is the biggest example of bad science because if you are going to state, on every level, that something is evidence of evolution, then divergence and convergence, logically, CAN, ONLY show evolution, whereas the facts themselves, logically, only show that you can get a morphologically identical or very similar or homologous form WITHOUT there being a relations.
This is why Dawkins states that the eye evolved separately some 40-odd times, therefore, how can we falsify such an example?
If logically, we can prove similar structure WITHOUT evolution, then how on earth does that not show logically, that organisms do not have to be related?
The logic is just ignored in favour of hand-selected falsifications instead of logical falsifications.
Example, finding a human in the Cambrian. But this posteriori monstrosity is only proposed as falsification evidence BECAUSE EVOLUTIONISTS KNOW they will not find such examples. But when we find pollen in the Pre-Cambrian, or the massive falsification evidence of every major phyla preserved in the Cambrian, with the cherry on top of no previous gradations from one type of animal to the next, what happens? Instead of heeding logic, ad-hoc explanations are invoked, or paradigms such as punctuated equilibrium or the hard-type hypothesis.
This is logic being completely ignored because of the heart, not the head.
mikey..............out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Trixie, posted 11-25-2011 2:08 PM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-29-2011 6:00 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 344 by DWIII, posted 11-30-2011 9:34 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 337 of 344 (642511)
11-29-2011 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Taq
11-29-2011 11:21 AM


Re: Reply to Percy
Alternatively, it is also a great claim to claim that a material cause caused it.
It is not an assertion that God is eternal. It is apriori. That is to say - the bible was written well before we were born.
We are not responding to the atheist when he says that God must have a cause - we ALWAYS stated that he was eternal, and it follows logically that he can't have a cause.
If we state that we believe in a circle, and you come along and say, "where does the circle begin then - evidence it has no beginning." Does that mean we are asserting, in response to your complaint, that a circle does not begin at a certain point?
No - we have always believe and stated that it does not have a beginning, so we are not asserting anything.
Our evidence is the bible scriptures, that state that God is eternal and has always existed. We need no more evidence to prove that we say that God is eternal and we always have.
Or, if you are asking us to evidence that God actually is eternal, then you know we can't "get our hands" on God, so you are setting up a goal, that can't be penetrated.
If you put a concrete wall in front of me and say, "now jump through it! HAH! You can't", I will say, "ofcourse I can't, because you had already sneakily put the wall there before hand knowing I did not have the ability to jump through it."
Of course we can't show that God is eternal scientifically, but this does not matter, unless we are stating something posteriori in order to defeat an atheist argument. But we are not, we always believed God was eternal, even before that particular atheist argument existed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Taq, posted 11-29-2011 11:21 AM Taq has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 338 of 344 (642515)
11-29-2011 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by Trixie
11-28-2011 4:44 AM


Re: Reply to Trixie - #301
I can't find a single passage where he agrees that the BB "smacks of divine intervention". He says nothing about what he thinks of the idea. Neither can I find a single passage which tells us that the moon isn't made of green cheese, nor can I find a single passage which says the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a myth so by your logic we now know that Hawking thinks that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real and the moon is made out of out of green cheese.
In my summation of the earlier thread, I provided four Hawking quotes. When you take the quotes together, it is pretty clear Hawking is agreeing with the concept the big bang "smacks of divine intervention" because he claims his no boundary universe leaves no place for a creator. This statement makes clear that he believes the big bang does reserve a place of honor for the creator - something Hawking is clearly keen to avoid.
By not taking the quotes I provided in their totality, you have twisted my presentation of the facts.
I am preparing a thread on Hawking. I hope you participate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Trixie, posted 11-28-2011 4:44 AM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by Taq, posted 11-29-2011 3:30 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 340 by Percy, posted 11-29-2011 4:14 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 341 by Trixie, posted 11-29-2011 4:42 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 343 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-29-2011 6:02 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 339 of 344 (642524)
11-29-2011 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by designtheorist
11-29-2011 2:33 PM


Re: Reply to Trixie - #301
By not taking the quotes I provided in their totality, you have twisted my presentation of the facts.
The entire problem is that you refuse to present facts. You can only present unfounded beliefs and quotes. If you presented facts that support your argument it would be a very welcomed change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 2:33 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 340 of 344 (642535)
11-29-2011 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by designtheorist
11-29-2011 2:33 PM


Re: Reply to Trixie - #301
Hi DesignTheorist,
A few things.
You don't need to use message subtitles to keep track of which message is a reply to who. The board software does that for you. Each message contains a link to the message it is a reply to, and a list of links to all the replies.
By not taking the quotes I provided in their totality, you have twisted my presentation of the facts.
You seem to be doing a good job of not taking the "totality" of what other people have provided about Hawking's thinking. Your interpretation of what Hawking believes is based upon quotes you yourself chose and also upon the absence of other quotes you've apparently decided not to consider. Interpretations are not facts, and Hawking isn't the topic of this thread anyway.
The topic is logical fallacies.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 2:33 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(3)
Message 341 of 344 (642544)
11-29-2011 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by designtheorist
11-29-2011 2:33 PM


Re: Reply to Trixie - #301
designtheorist writes:
When you take the quotes together.....
That's the whole point of my argument. You originally provided a single sentence out of context and used that to make your argument and its that that I described as quote mining.
It's neither here nor there what Hawking thinks in this thread. This thread is about logical fallacies. That you're now providing more quotes to try to bolster your interpretation is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that you initially provided a single sentence and that was good enough as far as you were concerned.
You're now bleating about me not taking your irrelevant quotes in their totality, you've already admonished me not to just use a single quote, yet it's fine and dandy for you to do it with your single sentence out of context from Hawking. Have you heard of double standards?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 2:33 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 342 of 344 (642554)
11-29-2011 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by mike the wiz
11-29-2011 1:40 PM


Mikey's Gish Gallop
Example, finding a human in the Cambrian. But this posteriori monstrosity is only proposed as falsification evidence BECAUSE EVOLUTIONISTS KNOW they will not find such examples. But when we find pollen in the Pre-Cambrian, or the massive falsification evidence of every major phyla preserved in the Cambrian, with the cherry on top of no previous gradations from one type of animal to the next, what happens? Instead of heeding logic, ad-hoc explanations are invoked, or paradigms such as punctuated equilibrium or the hard-type hypothesis.
Much of this doesn't mean anything and is indeed written in a language that you have made up, e.g: "the hard-type hypothesis", a phrase which only you have ever used.
Let me try to answer the bits that are written in English.
* We expect to find representatives of the largest divisions of life, such as phyla, early in the geological record because according to the theory of evolution the largest divisions must be the earliest ones. The theory of evolution is not falsified by the success of its predictions.
* Creationists themselves reject this nonsense about pollen --- see Arthur V. Chadwick, "Precambrian Pollen in the Grand Canyon - A Reexamination," Origins, 8:1, 1981, pp 7-8 (7-12).
* Are you seriously pretending that there are no intermediate forms? Well, good luck with that. But you will find that the theory is not falsified by stuff you've made up in your head.
* Yes, we do know that you won't find any humans in the Cambrian. This is only one of many things that we are right about. You almost seem to be trying to make it sound as though knowing things is a bad thing. It isn't.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by mike the wiz, posted 11-29-2011 1:40 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 343 of 344 (642558)
11-29-2011 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by designtheorist
11-29-2011 2:33 PM


Re: Reply to Trixie - #301
In my summation of the earlier thread, I provided four Hawking quotes. When you take the quotes together, it is pretty clear Hawking is agreeing with the concept the big bang "smacks of divine intervention" because he claims his no boundary universe leaves no place for a creator.
Hello? Earth to whatever planet you're living on? Hawking's no-boundary universe begins with a Big Bang.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 2:33 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
DWIII
Member (Idle past 1752 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


(1)
Message 344 of 344 (642624)
11-30-2011 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by mike the wiz
11-29-2011 1:40 PM


Should the dreaded "strawman" be on DT's list'o'fallacies?
mike the wiz writes:
Trixie writes:
Without critical thinking and applying logic correctly, scientists would lead themselves up the garden path and it would become evident in their data. I think your description of a B.S. detector inherent in science and scientists is accurate.
This is why I usually prefer operational science.
"Operational science" = creationist buzzwords.
With a claim as LARGE as macro-evolution, logically speaking, you are stating something very, very great.
I disagree that scientists all proceed logically, I am not convinced that perfect objectivity is born out.
For example, falsification evidence is found, concerning the ToE, which should logically be regarded as highly important to the vague claim that all and every extant and extinct organism stemmed from the first organism through common ancestry.
I agree that your strawman-version of evolution is unfalsifiable precisely for the reasons you give. Try examining the actual claims for a change.
You have a point that "all and every extant and extinct organism stemmed from the first organism through common ancestry" is a vague (and subsequently unfalsifiable) claim. Thus it is no surprise that the ToE simply does not claim that. The actual claim is, as far as we know, every currently-living organism on Earth derives from a past common ancestor (and almost certainly not the first organism, whatever that may be), and would be falsified if we find so much as one living organism on Earth that cannot fit within the established nested hierarchy (i.e, had derived from a separate abiogenetic (or even supernatural-creation) event).
If something like that was ever discovered, it would be major-headlines BIG NEWS; and yet would still be no real problem for the ToE, which would be perfectly comfortable with the existence of multiple disconnected ancestral trees.
Such a massive claim, can never be logically "proved" or called, a "fact", because of the potential non sequitur. From what Zen Deist said, we know that a theory proceeds as a fallacious illogical suggestion, this is why the theory can only be "viable" through confirmation evidence, with a very heavy logical emphasis upon the falsification evidence. This is because inductive reasoning is flawed. Even if you find a million birds that can't fly, that will not prove that birds can't fly. Only 100% of all birds in existence will push you into the realms of deductive certainty.
As has likely been previously (and perhaps repetitively) explained to you: there is no "proof" in science, and thus there is no point in responding to the rest of your dribble.
"Scientific proof" is an oxymoron.

DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by mike the wiz, posted 11-29-2011 1:40 PM mike the wiz 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