Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2017 5:12 AM
406 online now:
AdminAsgara (Asgara), dwise1, PaulK, Rrhain, Tangle (5 members, 401 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 801,983 Year: 6,589/21,208 Month: 2,350/2,634 Week: 13/525 Day: 13/11 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
8910Next
Author Topic:   Crop circles and intelligent design
Peter
Member (Idle past 1273 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 91 of 149 (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 responded

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

    
Peter
Member (Idle past 1273 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 92 of 149 (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 responded

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

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7383
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 93 of 149 (619306)
06-09-2011 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Peter
06-09-2011 11:31 AM


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.

That's not a fact, it's the result of how you define the word fact. I was referring to a fact as something that has been established as being true beyond all reasonable doubts.

So you are a creationist then ? That's the only way that ALL baby rabbits come from other rabbits.

But does raising the point about the difficulties of classifying biology really impact my point? You were the one that said

quote:
While I suspect that most (if not all) crop circles are the works of humans ... being able to create something 'the same' is not evidence that that's how the original was done.

So, we know that magicians make rabbits appear in hats. We know that some of them do it by taking a rabbit that was born of another rabbit and placing it in the hat without us noticing. This does not mean that all conjurers do it this way. Some of them may be creating rabbits out of thin air. Do I HAVE to express tentativity here?

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.

And don't forget that 'few' is hundreds, if not thousands. Also note that no crop circle has yet been found that could not have been done by humans.

From cave paintings to discarded finger paintings through to paintings by forgotten masters. When we find one of these, we feel the evidence supports that it was done by a human, not by aliens. Crop circles are just like any other art; paintings, music, sculpture. Unless you want to around commenting about how we haven't ruled out that the anonymous author of such a poem was an alien or a goblin, I still don't see what is so special about crop circles (or aliens for that matter).

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.

I have no desire for crop circles to be human, no more than any other art. In fact, I would kind of like for there to be some alien art in the world. Do I HAVE to express the tentativity when I talk about how humans create all terrestrial art (with potential exceptions of other terrestrial species depending on our definitions), or just when the canvas is made of a crop?

What about grafitti: another underground art form. We know some of it is done by humans with spray cans...but is all of it?

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Peter, posted 06-09-2011 11:31 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Peter, posted 06-10-2011 7:06 AM Modulous has responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3422
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 94 of 149 (619451)
06-09-2011 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Peter
06-09-2011 11:49 AM


Re: Evidenced Speculation
There is a possibility that alien life exists within our galaxy, even though we have not yet found any.

As evidenced speculation, yes, alien life in our galaxy is a viable possibility.

'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.

In the absence of direct evidence, if there is enough evidence from other fields that indirectly impact on a speculation's efficacy then, again, consideration is warranted.

If there is no evidence, direct or indirect, then a speculation is worthless and not worthy of any consideration.

Dr. Sagan's comment, to those who want to "believe" sans any reason other than faith, sounds as if every speculation should be considered and I do not believe this was his intent.


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.

Alien life is an evidenced speculation. It has viability to be considered.
Technological life has very weak indirect evidence and is a questionable speculation.
Alien visits to Earth have no evidence, direct or indirect, and our present knowledge of physics precludes a viable possibility.
The chain is broken. Aliens making crop circles has no viability and need not be considered any more than wormholes from Magrathea.

Why is the idea that aliens make crop circles so widely ridiculed?

Because it's bullshit.

With ID we rule it out by refuting the claims of 'proof' presented by the suggusters

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.

That's not what happens with crop circles or bigfoot or the loch-ness monster or Alien spacecraft .... but why?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Peter, posted 06-09-2011 11:49 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Peter, posted 06-10-2011 7:23 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1273 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 95 of 149 (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 responded

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

    
Peter
Member (Idle past 1273 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 96 of 149 (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 responded

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

    
richdix
Junior Member (Idle past 2022 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 97 of 149 (619517)
06-10-2011 7:28 AM


Parsimony and Occum's Razor
I think 'parsimony' and 'Occum's Razor' are the two concepts necessary to succinctly answer this question. To suggest that any biological organism (or any chemical or elementary particle for that matter) is intelligently designed is to introduce an assumption for which there is no support. But suggesting that humans or ETs designed all the crop circles is consistent with known phenomena (ie. intelligent biological organisms).

Parsimony and the Razor are never proofs of anything, but they are used to guide the formulation of a workable theory, and hence important concepts when deciding what and what not to regard as scientific.

With these two concepts alone we can confidently regard ID as not scientific, whilst cereology, in principle, is indeed scientific.


Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2011 9:43 AM richdix has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7383
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 98 of 149 (619542)
06-10-2011 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Peter
06-10-2011 7:06 AM


Re: bogeymen hiding in the unfalsifiable corner
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.

I have already explained how I was using the word. I was using it to mean a conclusion about the world that is so well established it would be perverse to deny. Heliocentrism was not always well established beyond all reasonable doubt. So if someone said in 3AD 'It is a fact that the earth orbits the sun' we would be perfectly correct to say 'It is not a fact even though it might be true', using the word as I was.

Ruling things out because you have not looked for the evidence, or even not found the evidence is not scientific IMO.

Ruling things out without them being scientifically ruled out would of course be unscientific. I don't suggest we do this. I do suggest we don't give credence to unfalsifiable theories - which is very scientific (just ask Popper)

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.

No. Actually, creationists also accept that this is the case (believing in a small number of rabbits that were created), for us evolutionists the issue is just a small issue of drawing an arbitrary line.

Your point is just pedantry though. If you must, change it to 'all rabbits within the last 100,000 years' and you'll see there is no problem (except for YECs)

If I was to produce a rabbit and I asked you 'what is the scientific explanation for how this came about' you wouldn't be wrong to say 'In theory, it was born from another rabbit - and there are no other viable and falsifiable alternatives at this time, so we'll run with that.'

You wouldn't say, 'Well it could have been magicked into being by God (omphalist creationsists) or a magician (thaumaturgical creationists) or aliens (xenological creationists)', while remaining within the realms of scientific thought. Philosophically you could justify bringing it up, but once you have picked the scientific route, these considerations are the background noise that affects all conclusions and so don't need to be specifically brought up everytime we say anything. The tentativity is built in. And as you have seen - when the discussion advances, nobody denies this tentativity, everyone is perfectly happy with it. It's just silly to give one unfalsifiable possibility in one type of circumstance specific attention.

Has anyone tried to duplicate an existing crop circle? Particularly one of some complexity?

Yes. Has anyone found one that could not be replicated?

Are there common features across 'unknown origin' crop circles that are consistent, but inconsistent with 'defo human-made' crop circles?

If there were, I would have expected you to have advised me of it. To my knowledge, there are no such features.

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.

If it is 20% then that is more than we have determined the origins of rabbits in the last 1,000 years. So we have a better base to perform inductive reasoning about crop circles than we do about rabbits.

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).

And, though there maybe several techniques available for making crop circles, I strongly doubt that aliens really did any of them.

But I don't know that. It is not a scientific conclusion, it is a popular conclusion.

I don't know what a 'popular conclusion' is. However, inferring general principles from specific examples can be perfectly scientific. That's why when we perform an experiment we can then use the results to say general things about the way the universe works.

Galileo and Newton only saw maybe 0.000000001% of all pendulums, but they still scientifically derived predictions about their periods and how it is proportional to the length of the 'string/rope/whatever'. You'll note that in deep discourse, we will express the tentativity of those conclusions, but in common debate - and even in most scientific discussions, it is simply not necessary and often serves only to distract for no good reason.

In scientific discussion it should be addressed. Even if it's just a confidence level in a conclusion.

As I said before, rather than hedging every statement in science, we just build the principle of fallibility into our work and leave it mostly unstated. You'll note that this is not a scientific journal.

But here is a way to prove me wrong once and for all. Find me a scientific paper in a well established and respected journal that specifically mentions an unfalsifiable hypothesis such as 'some of the phenomena might sometimes caused by aliens in unknown ways' and I'll concede your point.

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.

In my experience, most graffiti is anonymous, consisting of a witty or insulting slur on someone or some thing. Furthermore, aliens that are capable of the more skilled graffiti art are presumably capable of signing or otherwise 'tagging' it.

Crop circles are entirely consistent with known processes.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Peter, posted 06-10-2011 7:06 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Peter, posted 06-13-2011 11:05 AM Modulous has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7383
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 99 of 149 (619543)
06-10-2011 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by richdix
06-10-2011 7:28 AM


Re: Parsimony and Occum's Razor
With these two concepts alone we can confidently regard ID as not scientific, whilst cereology, in principle, is indeed scientific.

But parsimony would have us cut out unnecessary entities, right? So any cereological conclusion that adds entities which are not necessary to explain crop circles is unparsimonious. Earth visiting aliens are not necessary to explain crop circles, and further they are not independently evidenced entities.

Cereology with xenological explanations fairs little better than biology with teleological explanations.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by richdix, posted 06-10-2011 7:28 AM richdix has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3422
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 100 of 149 (619591)
06-10-2011 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Peter
06-10-2011 7:23 AM


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.

(snip)

Indirect evidence is still evidence, it's just less reliable.

I do not see a point of disagreement here.

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.

This is part of the indirect evidence and is extremely weak. There is no evidence that sentience or technology is inevitable in a life system, nor is there any evidence, even should it arise, that it is a long-term phenomenon.

We are lost in both space and in time.

Until there is more viable evidence this poposition is very weak at best.

"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.

Anecdote? Surely you jest.

The hard evidence is that Human perception is nortoriously poor and the human propensity to embellish is well established.

That is why anecdote is not acceptable.

And the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

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).

Are you suggesting some world-wide all-governments conspiracy spanning multiple generations without any leaks? Amazing.

But I'm just trying to point out that 'no evidence' is not the case.

Given all the above, this is indeed the case.

The evidence presented is about the unknown process that creates the crop circles, and how humans cannot exactly duplicate the 'real' phenomenon.

Someone has evidence of this "unknown" process? Really? Where?

Whose incredulity determind that humans "cannot exactly duplicate" a crop circle? All present direct evidence shows that humans are more than capable in this genre.

Do you assume humans could not possibly have built the pyramids as well?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Peter, posted 06-10-2011 7:23 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Peter, posted 06-14-2011 8:15 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1273 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 101 of 149 (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 responded

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

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7383
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 102 of 149 (620091)
06-14-2011 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Peter
06-13-2011 11:05 AM


tentative nature of stated conclusions
So if someone presented a falsifiable theory of alien crop circle manufature, that would be OK?

I would argue that a falsifiable theory with no evidence is in principle better than an unfalsifiable theory with no evidence.

I think not. You stated, as undeniable fact, a conclusion which was, in fact, inocorrect no matter what stance you take on 'creation'.

Does this look like stating something as an undeniable fact:

quote:
Just like we have the theory that all rabbits are born from other rabbits. We haven't observed and established this is true of all rabbits so it isn't a fact, as such. One day a rabbit might actually magically appear in a hat, maybe it already has.

quote:
Rather we can make the inductive leap, realizing the tentativity of so doing. We don't have to explicitly express our tentativity when we say baby rabbits come from other rabbits

And then, when it was pointed out that the falsifiable theory might be thought of as technically falsified, I immediately put forward a modified version.

quote:
Your point is just pedantry though. If you must, change it to 'all rabbits within the last 100,000 years' and you'll see there is no problem (except for YECs)

Or indeed, 'all present day rabbits come from rabbits' or 'all rabbits come from rabbits or primitive rabbit like rodents'.

Does this look like someone presenting an 'undeniable fact'? You seem to have a bias that interprets other people's strongly implied tentativity as statements of unassailable facts.

The answer is clearly qualified with a 'state of knowledge' and 'tenatativity' ... which again is all I've asked for.

And my point is that such tentativity is built into the meaning of words when we are talking about theories, inductive logic and/or science.

Has anyone tried to duplicate an existing crop circle? Particularly one of some complexity?

Yes.

Do you have an references to support that claim?

http://www.circlemakers.org

I see what you mean ... not made that level of observation. So why do we believe THAT then?

Inducttive logic

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Peter, posted 06-13-2011 11:05 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Peter, posted 06-14-2011 10:25 AM Modulous has responded

    
Peter
Member (Idle past 1273 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 103 of 149 (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 responded

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

    
Peter
Member (Idle past 1273 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 104 of 149 (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 responded

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

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7383
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 105 of 149 (620271)
06-15-2011 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Peter
06-14-2011 10:25 AM


Re: tentative nature of stated conclusions
That whole rabbit thing was the point:
You STARTED by stating it as fact.

My first mention of rabbits in this thread is in Message 88

quote:
Sure it does. Just like we have the theory that all rabbits are born from other rabbits. We haven't observed and established this is true of all rabbits so it isn't a fact, as such.

So no, I didn't state it as a fact. I have only made 12 posts to this thread, and with the tools Percy has provided us it should be easy to look this stuff up.

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.

It is as proved as

terrestrial books are written by human authors
raindrops fall from clouds
terrestrial poems are composed by human poets
terrestrial crop circles are made by human pranksters/artists.

They are not proven 100%, each is proven by induction. That is: specific known examples are used to as the basis to make general conclusions. Philosophical tentativity built in.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Peter, posted 06-14-2011 10:25 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Peter, posted 06-21-2011 11:47 AM Modulous has responded

    
Prev1
...
56
7
8910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017