Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8749 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-26-2017 9:00 AM
381 online now:
JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 378 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Roshankumar1234
Post Volume:
Total: 809,054 Year: 13,660/21,208 Month: 3,142/3,605 Week: 484/933 Day: 22/51 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
567
8
910Next
Author Topic:   A Guide to Creationist Tactics
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 136 (571707)
08-02-2010 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Bikerman
08-02-2010 1:14 AM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
Yeah, that's probably true. I hadn't considered it, but maybe it is a function of language that we tend to not consider a middle ground between "certain" and "no idea", unless we've been trained to do so.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Bikerman, posted 08-02-2010 1:14 AM Bikerman has not yet responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1041 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 107 of 136 (571709)
08-02-2010 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Bikerman
08-02-2010 12:52 AM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
Sorry, but this is just nonsense.

I do realize you are probably young, and I have no wish to play my normal full-out game against a much weaker opponent because it troubles my international sense of fair play.

In one small paragraph you have managed to say one of the the most illogical things one could almost imagine. "QM mechanics teaches us that the world is random, and I know this because I can test it scientifically and it is repeatable every time. "

You may be having psychotic, irrational hallucinations every time you believe someone can check your work, or that you have done any work at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Bikerman, posted 08-02-2010 12:52 AM Bikerman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 08-02-2010 1:34 AM Bolder-dash has responded
 Message 111 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2010 1:45 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 112 by Bikerman, posted 08-02-2010 1:48 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 136 (571711)
08-02-2010 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Bolder-dash
08-02-2010 1:32 AM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
"QM mechanics teaches us that the world is random, and I know this because I can test it scientifically and it is repeatable every time. "

There's nothing illogical about it. We have statistical tests to detect randomness. They're the foundation of all scientific experimentation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-02-2010 1:32 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Bikerman, posted 08-02-2010 1:39 AM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 110 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-02-2010 1:40 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 2367 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 109 of 136 (571712)
08-02-2010 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by crashfrog
08-02-2010 1:34 AM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
You beat me to it :-)
Yes, just to reiterate, random means not deterministic which means I cannot predict what one occurance or outcome will be.
Many people get confused here. For example, if I say a dice is random then people think that means 'fair'. So if I say a 6d is random they assume it has a 1 in 6 chance for each result.
No, untrue. A loaded dice is still random. Unless you can say in advance with 'certainty' what the result will be then it is random.
Chaos is deterministic you CAN say what the next result will be, but the results taken as a whole don't form a pattern, or form bifurcating paterns just before becoming truly chaotic.

So, sorry Bolder-dash but you are wrong - what I said was fairly precise and accurate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 08-02-2010 1:34 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-02-2010 1:59 AM Bikerman has responded

    
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1041 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 110 of 136 (571713)
08-02-2010 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by crashfrog
08-02-2010 1:34 AM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
If QM mechanics taught us that the world is completely random, how could you repeat a test everytime to show that was so. That is what is illogical!

Of course you need logic to understand that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 08-02-2010 1:34 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-02-2010 1:49 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 114 by crashfrog, posted 08-02-2010 1:49 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 115 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2010 1:50 AM Bolder-dash has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15929
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 111 of 136 (571714)
08-02-2010 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Bolder-dash
08-02-2010 1:32 AM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
Sorry, but this is just nonsense.

Perhaps it's worth explaining to you one more time that if you can't understand some subject, that does not imply that the subject is stupid. There is an alternate explanation.

I do realize you are probably young, and I have no wish to play my normal full-out game against a much weaker opponent because it troubles my international sense of fair play.

If you are claiming that you are deliberately dumbing yourself down ... then that would explain a lot.

You can stop now. We won't mind.

In one small paragraph you have managed to say one of the the most illogical things one could almost imagine.

Again, your incomprehension of a statement does not necessarily mean that the statement is illogical. It could mean that your unique and distinctive mental qualities render you unfit to distinguish logic from a hole in the ground.

You may be having psychotic, irrational hallucinations every time you believe someone can check your work, or that you have done any work at all.

Either that, or you are ignorant of a subject that you are, in fact, ignorant of.

Hmm ... which is more likely?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-02-2010 1:32 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 2367 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 112 of 136 (571715)
08-02-2010 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Bolder-dash
08-02-2010 1:32 AM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
quote:
You may be having psychotic, irrational hallucinations every time you believe someone can check your work, or that you have done any work at all.
Possible but so unlikely as to be functionally impossible in this universe. If you want to use the ultimate existential get-out clause* then fine, but the discussion will go nowhere and there will still be a set of principled differences between science and faith.
I can check Einstein's work on SR (and a good portion of GR) so there is no faith required - the math is sound. You cannot check a reported religious experience because it is, almost by definition, entirely subjective/personal.
Now if I want to say that Relativity is correct then that is belief. In fact I know it isn't so I would not say otherwise. Most scientists are clear about this but since scientific language is so different from everyday usage then lapsing is understandable. The classic example is the word 'theory' which to a scientist means something far more rigorous than everyday usage as 'guess' or 'hypothesis'.
Most creationists do actually know this (or are made aware) but refuse to accept it and still regularly trot out 'evolution is only a theory' as if it revealed anything except their own ignorance....

* that being we cannot say for certain that we even exist - we only have the input of our senses which could be feeding us bad data, no data or data being fed to them without our knowledge. Probably reasonable to call it the 'Matrix' argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-02-2010 1:32 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

    
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1041 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 113 of 136 (571716)
08-02-2010 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Bolder-dash
08-02-2010 1:40 AM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
I think what he probably meant to say was that QM teaches us that the particles within an atom behave randomly, and yet the world behaves predictably.

He might have a hard time understanding the distinction, even despite "knowing his game, slaughtering his last opponents, and his pro-am level of debating proficiency."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-02-2010 1:40 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 136 (571717)
08-02-2010 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Bolder-dash
08-02-2010 1:40 AM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
If QM mechanics taught us that the world is completely random, how could you repeat a test everytime to show that was so.

I told you. Because we have a statistical test for randomness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-02-2010 1:40 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15929
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 115 of 136 (571719)
08-02-2010 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Bolder-dash
08-02-2010 1:40 AM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
If QM mechanics taught us that the world is completely random, how could you repeat a test everytime to show that was so. That is what is illogical!

Of course you need logic to understand that.

"QM mechanics".

* snickers *

What do you think the M in QM stands for?

Once you've found that out, you might want to find out something about the actual subject matter of QM ... and probability theory ... and logic.

And then if you try to lecture people on these subjects they won't laugh at you quite so much.

(Of course, this assumes that you wish to avoid public humiliation --- an assumption which may not be warranted by your behavior.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-02-2010 1:40 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Bikerman, posted 08-02-2010 2:01 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 118 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-02-2010 2:03 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1041 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 116 of 136 (571722)
08-02-2010 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Bikerman
08-02-2010 1:39 AM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
The opposite of order is chaos. You don't get to tell me what chaos means-it has a universal meaning, which you don't get to decide.

The world is not chaos, precisely because we can make predictions about it.

Order has to be derived from somewhere.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Bikerman, posted 08-02-2010 1:39 AM Bikerman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Bikerman, posted 08-02-2010 2:05 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 08-02-2010 2:06 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2010 2:07 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 125 by Dr Jack, posted 08-02-2010 7:34 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 2367 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


(1)
Message 117 of 136 (571723)
08-02-2010 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Dr Adequate
08-02-2010 1:50 AM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
But I really like being lectured to by creationists. As a teacher it gives me some insight into what some of my students must feel occasionally :-)

PS - Bolder - I should add that the thing which divides science from non-science, pseudo-science and other forms of belief is basically the ability (and willingness) to be proved wrong.
If you make a statement that cannot be proved wrong then it isn't science. Ideally any scientific hypothesis should not only be testable, it should say exactly what would prove it to be incorrect - ie it should invite people to shoot it down. That is basically the scientific method. Observe/experiment, hypothesise, test (try to refute it), and refine by going back to the first step. Science is the only form of human understanding that I know of that builds this in - the whole enterprise doesn't just welcome being proved wrong, it relies on it. If you want to educate yourself on this then look up 'induction, Hume and Popper'.

This is what I find amusing when people say scientists are arrogant. Scientists are the people who can have their life-work trashed in a moment by anyone.
Now in reality, of course, we are all human with human flaws so you get scientific inertia - anyone wanting to pursue that should of course be reading Thommy Khun (who I could never take to as an author, but who nonetheless spoke truth to power).

Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2010 1:50 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1041 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 118 of 136 (571724)
08-02-2010 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Dr Adequate
08-02-2010 1:50 AM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
That's your argument, that I can't say the mechanics of Quantum mechanics?

Wow, powerful stuff A.

Do you also debate at the same pro-am level as biker?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2010 1:50 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2010 2:09 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 123 by Bikerman, posted 08-02-2010 2:12 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 2367 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 119 of 136 (571726)
08-02-2010 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Bolder-dash
08-02-2010 1:59 AM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
quote:
The opposite of order is chaos. You don't get to tell me what chaos means-it has a universal meaning, which you don't get to decide.

The world is not chaos, precisely because we can make predictions about it.

Order has to be derived from somewhere.



LOL, you do grant me such airs and graces. You think I decided? Thanks for the compliment but I must decline.
Heres a little illustration.
1. Take a pencil and paper.
2. Draw a triangle - any type, right angles, iscoceles, whatever.
3. Pick a point at random in the triangle and plot a point.
4. Repeat
5. Choose at random one of the vertices (corners) of the triangle, move halfway from where you are to that corner and plot a point.
6. for a long time

Is that chaotic? Do you think you can predict the outcome? Betcha!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-02-2010 1:59 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 136 (571727)
08-02-2010 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Bolder-dash
08-02-2010 1:59 AM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
Order has to be derived from somewhere.

There's a substantial field of mathematics, the results of which have indicated that order can frequently be derived from chaos. (And chaos from highly ordered rules.) Weird, since they're opposites, but true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-02-2010 1:59 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
567
8
910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017