Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8783 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-22-2017 4:42 PM
102 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,765 Year: 21,371/21,208 Month: 1,804/2,326 Week: 259/881 Day: 84/97 Hour: 10/10

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Author Topic:   Testing Theories of Origins
subbie
Member (Idle past 206 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


(2)
Message 121 of 143 (694619)
03-26-2013 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by designtheorist
03-26-2013 9:01 AM


Re: Attempt at a Summation
This is not so much as summation of the discussions in this thread as it is a restatement of what you said at the beginning of the thread while completely disregarding every objection that everyone in the thread had to what you said. As such, it is a marvelous encapsulation of creationism at its best.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by designtheorist, posted 03-26-2013 9:01 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(2)
Message 122 of 143 (694641)
03-26-2013 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by designtheorist
03-26-2013 9:01 AM


Re: Attempt at a Summation
Hi, DT.

designtheorist writes:

i know there are several people who want this thread to end so we can get to the evidence.

Nobody seems more interested in ending this thread than you.

designtheorist writes:

Explanatory Power - the best model is the one with the greatest explanatory power, the ability to explain all the data relevant to origins in all the different scientific disciplines.

As Dr Adequate said upthread, is it too easy to simply manufacture additional explanatory power by adding assumptions or removing details. Explanatory power is a minimal standard for any model: the model must meet this standard in order to be considered plausible, but meeting this standard is not enough to demonstrate how good the model is.

-----

For the minor tests, you basically assume that the empirical strength is the only criterion that each test speaks to. But, in fact, every result of the test could point to at least two possible explanations.

designtheorist writes:

Censorship - If one model is attempting to censor another model, this is an indication of weakness in the censoring model. It indicates its proponents are unwilling to compete in the open market place of ideas which is the scientific journals. (This test has nothing to do with public schools) If there is no censorship, this is a sign of strength.

There are too many reasons for censoring and too many reasons for not censoring. You might censor an opposing model because your own model is empirically weak. But, you also might do it because of non-empirical weaknesses. Or, you might censor one idea for economy (a journal that gets too many submissions might be looking for easy excuses to reject more papers, for example).

On the other hand, you might refrain from censoring an opponent because your own model is strong enough to not need it. But, that's not the only reason you might refrain. You also might refrain from censoring them because your political status is not strong enough to pull it off; or because all your past attempts at censorship have failed.

So, engaging in censorship doesn't reliably point to empirical weakness in your model, and refraining from censorship doesn't reliably point to empirical strengths in your model. Thus, this test does not yield any reliable results.

designtheorist writes:

Stultification - If scientists are punished or feel threatened for taking a stance on origins or even questioning some of the evidence, then stultification is present and this is a sign of weakness. In the past, this has been used in the case of Galileo among others. Recent examples include Carolyn Crocker and Thomas Nagel, who are considered heretics against Darwinism. If there is no stultification, that is a strength that has confirmatory power. If it is present, that is a weakness that needs investigation.

You're veering away from "stultification" and toward "censorship" here. Stultification is the slowing of advancement and progress, not the fear of punishment. Ross's vision here seems to be that science should be in a constant state dynamic flux, and the lack of such a state is an indication that science is reaching the end of a dead-end path.

But, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not clear on how you determine whether stultification is actually happening. For example, how do you distinguish the undesirable process of stagnation due to the dominance of poor avenues of research, from the desirable process of solidifying science into a rigid body of theory as it gets closer to accurately representing reality?

Good theories become less malleable over time precisely because they get closer to accurately representing reality. This could easily cause a slowing of advancement, because each step closer to the end goal leaves that much less advancement for future scientists to make.

So, how do you determine if a field is stultified?


-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*

*Yeah, it's real

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by designtheorist, posted 03-26-2013 9:01 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Taq, posted 03-27-2013 1:26 PM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1714
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 123 of 143 (694683)
03-27-2013 3:08 AM


Not all of this comment is on topic, but I'll write it anyway.

This thread has turned into just another denialist creationist miscarriage due to the behaviour of the originator, who refuses to acknowledge that he didn't always write the truth.

His summary is just another repeat of his opening statement. Nothing of interest.

One thing that did jump at me, though, was designtheorist showing huge respect for "Dr. Ross", while showing no respect for "Dawkins".

Dr Ross earned his Doctorate in Astrophysics. Nothing to do with biology.

Dr Dawkins earned his Doctorate in Ethology and Evolutionary Biology.

Apart from that, in America, College Professors are a dime a dozen (no disrespect to the real Professors intended).

In the rest of the English speaking world*, earning the title of Professor in one of the natural sciences is indeed a very high achievement, only obtained by a very few highly distinguished and brilliant people.

*Well, I don't know how it works in Canada.

Edited by Pressie, : Added the sentence on the Doctorate of Dr Ross amongst others


    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15703
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 124 of 143 (694685)
03-27-2013 7:13 AM


In the beginning...
In the beginning there was a single Christian mythology, and God looked upon it and saw it was good. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Then man looked about him and saw that some men believed differently, and so he created different Christian sects with different interpretations of Christian mythology. And God looked upon it and was concerned. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Then evangelical and other conservative Christians looked upon science and saw that it contradicted their Christian mythology, and so they invented Creation Science, and God looked upon it and was sad. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Then these Christians saw that it wasn't enough to just invent Creation Science, and so they began making up stories about science itself and the people within science, and God looked upon it and was perplexed. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

So God gave these Christians the right to keep and bear arms, but they took to their guns with great enthusiasm, using them often and with great success, and God looked upon it and was dumbfounded. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Then these Christians saw that they had become the most powerful nation in the world and decided to impose their will on the rest of the world, and God looked upon it and knew not what to think. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

On the seventh day God left.

--Percy


    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9815
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 125 of 143 (694687)
03-27-2013 7:59 AM


Same stuff different day
An OP, full of vigor and expectation starts thread promising to end all doubt, solve world hunger, or whatever. Three posts in, the logic fallacy behind the OP's proclamations are exposed, but denial keeps the post going for a 100 or more messages. Finally, the kitchen becomes too hot and the OP bolts, never acknowledging an error.

The above is designtheorist's history. You can click on his handle and see the same sorry 'bad premise-denial-bolt' performance in multiple threads that he has started. He never vets his own sources; that's our job, he claims. He simply denies science he does not understand, and then he loses and bolts, never acknowledging more than the tiniest error.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Blue Jay, posted 03-27-2013 10:02 AM NoNukes has responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 126 of 143 (694690)
03-27-2013 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by NoNukes
03-27-2013 7:59 AM


Re: Same stuff different day
Designtheorist is a very good writer, though; so it all sounds pretty good. I either hadn't seen his stuff here before or didn't remember it, and I'll admit that I was rather enthusiastic about this thread when I saw how well he could write.

He certainly keeps a positive attitude, as well: he didn't get angry or rebuke me when I wrote a few pointed things. So, kudos to him for that.

But, this is creationism, I think: lots of nice presentation, but very poor substance. Kind of like all the ads on TV.

And I still don't know what the "RTB Model" is.


-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*

*Yeah, it's real

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by NoNukes, posted 03-27-2013 7:59 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by NoNukes, posted 03-27-2013 10:23 AM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply
 Message 128 by subbie, posted 03-27-2013 10:41 AM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply
 Message 129 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-27-2013 10:53 AM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply
 Message 130 by Percy, posted 03-27-2013 10:57 AM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9815
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 127 of 143 (694691)
03-27-2013 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Blue Jay
03-27-2013 10:02 AM


Re: Same stuff different day
Designtheorist is a very good writer

He's a better writer than I am at least...

But, this is creationism, I think: lots of nice presentation, but very poor substance.

I think he's more of an ID proponent than the typical YEC would be.

And I still don't know what the "RTB Model"

I think designtheorist intends to get there eventually. Right now what he seems to be leading up to is establishing set of criteria that can be used to declare RTP the winner. In the meantime portions of Dr. Ross' book are available through Google. He also has a website up.

The heuristics remind of concepts that are applied in law. For example in patent law, which is what I practice, legal battles often revolve around whether the invention described in a patent is an obvious extention of things already known and hence not worth of a patent.

Determining that an invention is obvious is a very subjective process, so the determination is supplemented by the use of objective inquiries. The objective tests are easier to agree on, but they are not completely accurate. In other word, heuristics.

One such test is that if after an invention is released, competitors are quick to copy or license the invention, then it is more likely that the invention is non-obvious. The rationale is that if an invention were obvious and clearly valuable, then competitors would have implemented it without needing an example.

In court however, these heuristics are not guaranteed winners, because infringers are free to propose alternate explanations that support a finding of obviousness despite the fact that the heuristic is met. For example, competitors might chose to license an obvious invention because paying a royalty is much cheaper than filing and winning a law suit.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Blue Jay, posted 03-27-2013 10:02 AM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 206 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 128 of 143 (694692)
03-27-2013 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Blue Jay
03-27-2013 10:02 AM


Re: Same stuff different day
And I still don't know what the "RTB Model" is.

Hugh Ross runs an apolgetics website called Reasons to Believe. I assume that's what RTB stands for.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Blue Jay, posted 03-27-2013 10:02 AM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11675
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 129 of 143 (694693)
03-27-2013 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Blue Jay
03-27-2013 10:02 AM


Re: Same stuff different day
And I still don't know what the "RTB Model" is.

You're not gonna like it

quote:
Reasons to Believe uses the term model in reference to our effort to summarize physical (observational) and biblical data relevant to creation into a coherent explanatory framework. The following foundational beliefs help shape how we interpret the data.

  • The Bible (including Genesis 1–11) is the error-free word of God.
  • The creation account of Genesis 1 follows a basic chronology.
  • The record of nature is also a reliable revelation from God.
  • The message of nature will agree with what the Bible says.
  • The Bible contains a selective summary description of God’s creation activity (e.g., no mention of dinosaurs, bipedal primates, quantum mechanics, or the existence of other solar system planets).
  • God gives humans the privilege to fill in the details, carefully, through patient, ongoing exploration and increased understanding of the natural realm.

We build our model by collating all that the Bible says about God’s creative work and integrating the individual accounts into a coherent picture. We then present this interpretation in the form of a scientific model, one that anticipates, or “predicts,” future findings. We can then evaluate its accuracy in light of scientific advances.

Step 1: The Bible is the error-free word of God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Blue Jay, posted 03-27-2013 10:02 AM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Theodoric, posted 03-27-2013 11:41 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15703
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 130 of 143 (694694)
03-27-2013 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Blue Jay
03-27-2013 10:02 AM


Re: Same stuff different day
I agree with all the nice things you say about DT and so find it incongruous that someone so apparently even-keeled and clearheaded can't see that things that are true don't require all the fancy footwork.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Blue Jay, posted 03-27-2013 10:02 AM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Tangle, posted 03-27-2013 11:28 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4983
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 131 of 143 (694695)
03-27-2013 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Percy
03-27-2013 10:57 AM


Re: Same stuff different day
Percy writes:

and so find it incongruous that someone so apparently even-keeled and clearheaded can't see that things that are true don't require all the fancy footwork.

I've been discussing this sort of stuff with various people for years - though nowhere near as intensely as you must have been - and the thing that returns over and over again, is how a firm belief overrides intellect.

It's the biggest puzzle in all of this - I don't regard Faith, Phat, mindspawn et al as at all stupid, they have intelligence and reasoning ability - and, for God's sake imagination.

But it's all directed at avoiding reality. Belief pollutes reason, even in otherwise reasonable people and I really don't get it.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Percy, posted 03-27-2013 10:57 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by NoNukes, posted 03-27-2013 12:06 PM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 134 by Blue Jay, posted 03-27-2013 2:46 PM Tangle has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9815
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 132 of 143 (694699)
03-27-2013 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Tangle
03-27-2013 11:28 AM


Re: Same stuff different day
I've been discussing this sort of stuff with various people for years - though nowhere near as intensely as you must have been - and the thing that returns over and over again, is how a firm belief overrides intellect.

I believe that we all have the vulnerability you describe above, and that for each of us, there is a topic or two on which we behave as if incapable of rational, logical thought. For example, not every zealous argument by opponents of creationism is free from error.

That said, I fear that you have may have gone a bit overboard with your list of people capable of logic.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Tangle, posted 03-27-2013 11:28 AM Tangle has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7034
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 133 of 143 (694718)
03-27-2013 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Blue Jay
03-26-2013 12:33 PM


Re: Attempt at a Summation
But, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not clear on how you determine whether stultification is actually happening. For example, how do you distinguish the undesirable process of stagnation due to the dominance of poor avenues of research, from the desirable process of solidifying science into a rigid body of theory as it gets closer to accurately representing reality?

Or better yet, how do you differentiate between stultification and finding the real answer? Should the state of a scientific field be in flux just for the sake of being in flux even when the models they have work and appear to be the right answer?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Blue Jay, posted 03-26-2013 12:33 PM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(3)
Message 134 of 143 (694734)
03-27-2013 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Tangle
03-27-2013 11:28 AM


Re: Same stuff different day
Hi, Tangle.

Tangle writes:

But it's all directed at avoiding reality. Belief pollutes reason, even in otherwise reasonable people and I really don't get it.

I get it, because I witness it in myself all the time.

Back in 2010, there were a certain series of vicious debates here, primarily between RAZD and Straggler, but I think it started with Bluegenes arguing that he could scientifically conclude that all supernatural entities exist only in human imagination. I was a major participant in those discussions, and I supported RAZD's position, which was that, if you can't test the supernatural directly, then you can't test alternative explanations for alleged supernatural events.

I was eventually convinced that I was wrong, but it took multiple threads of heated discussion. Straggler was arguing that, if I can conclude from past experience that gravity will make my pen drop to the desktop, then I can conclude from past experience that all claims of supernatural entities are made up. I got so sick of hearing about gravity and pens dropping, because I was so sure that the rules were different for the supernatural.

Just now I went back and reread some of those old posts, to which I will not be providing links here (it's kind of embarrassing, so you can find them on your own ). I vaguely remember being frustrated with Straggler for treating me like a simpleton when I was clearly a genius, and so frustrated with myself for not being able to explain things well enough that Straggler could understand something that was blindingly obvious.

I think I've started putting up mental blocks around it now, because I don't remember much of the specifics anymore. It's sort of like one of those surreal, out-of-body experiences. I can't put myself back in that mindset and figure out what it was that made me so sure I was right, that made all that faulty logic seem accurate. It's almost like reading things that somebody else posted.

But, I do remember what it felt like, and I'm sure Designtheorist is feeling the same thing right now: he's trying to figure out why, despite his best efforts, we can't understand something that is so damn obvious that it shouldn't even be controversial. Faith expresses similar frustrations all the time.

I know exactly what it feels like: it's the same thing I felt when Bolder-dash couldn't see the beards on the chimpanzee photos I showed him. The only difference is that, before, it was me who wasn't seeing chimpanzee beards. I mean, it was so obvious that that chimpanzee did not have a beard. I couldn't understand how Straggler could possibly think there was a beard there.

In retrospect, it was just cognitive dissonance. And some people, like myself, are just not very good at recognizing it: so, we plow on, completely oblivious to the fact that we're wrong.


-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*

*Yeah, it's real

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Tangle, posted 03-27-2013 11:28 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Tangle, posted 03-27-2013 3:13 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4983
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 135 of 143 (694738)
03-27-2013 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Blue Jay
03-27-2013 2:46 PM


Re: Same stuff different day
Blue Jay writes:

In retrospect, it was just cognitive dissonance. And some people, like myself, are just not very good at recognizing it: so, we plow on, completely oblivious to the fact that we're wrong.

Thanks for that.

I do 'get it' intellectually - I understand cognitive dissonance and suffer from it like everyone else. A while back here I had a discussion about Occam's Razor - with Dr A I think - where it took me a while to accept the argument.

But we have both eventually accepted reason in the end. There's nothing wrong with pushing hard against something you hold to be true being challenged, it's the absolute refusal to accept anything at all against it that is hard to understand.

The thing I don't get is the degree of logic and reason failure involved in, for example, Faith YEC beliefs. She has to fight pretty much all of modern science and invent her own inorder to maintain a totally bonkers belief.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Blue Jay, posted 03-27-2013 2:46 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017