Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,059 Year: 5,316/9,624 Month: 341/323 Week: 185/160 Day: 2/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 31 of 49 (353164)
09-29-2006 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Nighttrain
09-29-2006 6:24 AM


Re: Courage
Courage? How else would you define letting go of the familiar? What other quality sums up changing your cosy beliefs to the harsh light of Crit-think? We all accept certain values as the standards in our life, based on previous understanding. Then, if you remain true to the three elements and discover you are on a fool`s journey, do you compromise, or take a deep breath and realign your thinking? I doubt anyone can take the plunge without counting the cost of lost sureties, lost opportunities, possibly lost friends. So it boils down to whether CT is king, or do you accommodate the new without accepting the new boundaries? Whether the transition is something relatively mundane, or life-shaking like moving from religious to atheistic (or vice versa), rejecting scientific, political, tribal, even domestic ties in the face of new evidence, I`d say it took courage.
I'm glad you said "or vice versa" because it does take courage in many cases to become a Christian after a lifetime of atheism and so-called critical thinking, which was my situation. I was often criticized for being "too analytical" about other people's opinions and beliefs, especially in a time when New Age "spiritualities" were being tried out by everybody. When I started to become interested in Christianity my friends were not pleased with me, to say the least. They acted worried, solicitous for my health and mental condition, energized to provide me with good anti-Christian innoculating reading matter, gnosticism and William James for instance. Except for one diehard friend, and of course my family, I lost all my friends from my pre-Christian days when I turned to Christ. I tried to reconnect with some old friends when I discovered their websites a couple years ago and it was a nice reunion for a short period, but soon became apparent we had nothing in common any more.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Nighttrain, posted 09-29-2006 6:24 AM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Nighttrain, posted 09-29-2006 9:19 PM Faith has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5979 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 32 of 49 (353192)
09-29-2006 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by kuresu
09-29-2006 2:16 PM


Re: another example.
methinks quetzal misrepresented S1WCs. S1WCs was saying that, because the platypus has bird, reptile, and mammal features we should accept it as a transtional of all three, somehow (I think) ending up making it the ancestor of modern reptiles, birds, and mammals.
Actually, that is precisely my point. I must not have phrased it very well. S1WC is claiming that evolutionists would HAVE TO accept the playtpus as a "transitional" because, as you noted, he claims it has features of three widely separate taxa. In this, again as you noted, this is so incredibly wrong in so many ways that it can only show the depths to which creationists will plumb in order to mis-state and mis-understand evolutionary theory.
Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by kuresu, posted 09-29-2006 2:16 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5979 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 33 of 49 (353198)
09-29-2006 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Modulous
09-29-2006 9:28 AM


Re: another example.
I have no disagreement - I'm well aware that the monotremes retained many features from the mammal-like reptiles. However, see my reply to keresu. We were not talking about derived vs. primitive features, synapomorphy with reptiles, etc. S1WC is proclaiming that this organism is what evolution is talking about when we discuss transitionals. It is NOT a transitional in the sense that S1WC is claiming. He is misrepresenting the science, creating a ridiculous strawman, and then crowing that he's "disproved" transitional organisms. I keep waiting for anglagard to jump on him with both feet in their debate. Perhaps it is too minor a point, but to my mind this is clear evidence that S1WC has only a limited understanding of what he's claiming to refute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Modulous, posted 09-29-2006 9:28 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 4100 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 34 of 49 (353253)
09-29-2006 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
09-29-2006 3:22 PM


Re: Courage
Hey, Faith, momentous moment, we agree on something. I guess it boils down to being true to yourself. Face the chosen future because you won`t compromise on the rules you set for yourself, regardless of the pain. So easy to say WTH and keep your past. Far more of a test to hold to the demands of CT if it points in a different direction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 09-29-2006 3:22 PM Faith has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 4100 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 35 of 49 (353254)
09-29-2006 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by robinrohan
09-29-2006 8:14 AM


Re: Courage
Just sounds like boasting to me.
Nah, boasting is for the ego-driven. :-p

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by robinrohan, posted 09-29-2006 8:14 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by robinrohan, posted 09-29-2006 9:59 PM Nighttrain has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 49 (353255)
09-29-2006 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Nighttrain
09-29-2006 9:28 PM


Re: Courage
Nah, boasting is for the ego-driven
Everybody is ego-driven.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Nighttrain, posted 09-29-2006 9:28 PM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Nighttrain, posted 10-01-2006 11:40 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 37 of 49 (353383)
10-01-2006 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by iano
09-26-2006 8:46 AM


And if evolution is assumed to happen then fossils exhibiting certain characteristics will be slotted in as transitional because the assumption demands that there be some.
I dealing with the rather narrow issue of defining a transitional. And the definitions so far assume the traits to be transitional (derived descendent is the term used) which make the definitions evolutionist definitions not scientific ones. Razd quoted what was described as a neutral (read: scientific) definition when it most certainly is not.
His complaint seems to be that opponants twist 'scientific definitions' whereas they are actually evolutionist definitions of fossils found. If it is as I see it then its a complaint that rings hollow. "You may oppose but you must assume our definitions to correctly describe the fossil found"
You have this ass-backwards.
The theory of evolution requires that if two markedly different species are related by descent, there will have been species transitional between these species. As there is no particular reason why these transitional species, of all species, should not be fossilized, some, if not all of them, should have been. As the form of these supposed transitional species would have been intermediate between the start and end species of the transition, this leads to a prediction:
If the theory of evolution is correct, there will be intermediate forms in the fossil record.
Now the question of whether form B is intermediate between form A and form C is purely morphological: it can be decided from the study of form alone. No-one claims, as evidence for the theory, the theory-dependent proposition that intermediate forms represent transitional species; this would be circular reasoning, and scientists aren't idiots. Rather, the evidence for the theory is the theory-independent proposition that intermediate forms exist in the fossil record.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by iano, posted 09-26-2006 8:46 AM iano has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1512 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 38 of 49 (353425)
10-01-2006 10:10 AM


An example of "courage" from SW1C
In Message 47 SW1C boldly states
The truth of Creation is on my side, Creation is the truth. But my(imperfect person's) arguments against evolution using sources with outdated pieces of information is not infallible. It can be wrong, or outdated, because we are fallible humans. But the Creation truth will never fail, that fact that God created everything and you and me will never go wrong.
Translation: even when I am totally wrong I am right.
Logical corollaries of this are:
  • Corollary 1: because I am right I don't need to make corrections when it is shown that I am wrong, because I am really right anyway. I don't need to worry about the truth.
  • Corollary 2: because I am right I don't need to look at any evidence that shows I am wrong, because I am really right anyway. I don't need to worry about the truth.
  • Corollary 3: because I am right I can make stuff up and not have to worry about whether it is true or not, because I am really right anyway. I don't need to worry about the truth.
This is exactly the archetypical lack of courage that Nighttrain mentioned in Message 8:
The only quality I would add to the fundamentals of Crit-think is 'Courage'--the ability to admit to the conclusions reached if they run counter to one`s previous understanding.
Enjoy

For the record, on SW1C's little comment:
Yes, I would like it, but RAZD didn't seem to want to debate me one on one when I proposed it, so I don't think he wants to now.
I'll debate SW1C - as said before - when he meets my precondition of changing the grossly erroneous misrepresentation regarding lucy and the knee fossil in his "essay" that has already been pointed out to him, ie - he demonstrates that he can debate in good faith and admit when he is just plain wrong (which is most of the time, as demonstrated by anglagard in Message 47 -- even without the error of the knee joint included).

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 4100 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 39 of 49 (353538)
10-01-2006 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by robinrohan
09-29-2006 9:59 PM


Re: Courage
Everybody is ego-driven.
Perhaps, but some try not to let it fuel their world-view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by robinrohan, posted 09-29-2006 9:59 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1512 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 40 of 49 (354288)
10-04-2006 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
09-24-2006 8:21 PM


The Role of Evidence ... in Law and in Science
In the {Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (RAZD and MurkyWaters only)} thread Message 14 and Message 15 the issue of evidence came up, where Murkywaters had used someone elses opinion as evidence for his opinion.
Murkywaters writes:
Ok, look...all this discussion of the evidence is unproductive
RAZD writes:
Or it cuts to the heart of the matter, by discussing what is good evidence and what is not good evidence (or any kind of evidence at all).
Saying something does not make it so, thus to substantiate a position you need to provide real evidence for it.
quote:
evidence -n
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
Opinion is not evidence. False opinion is not even worth consideration.
Physical evidence is objective -- the broken window is physical evidence. Tree rings are objective evidence.
Law does make provision for the testimony of expert witnesses to obtain their opinion of certain facts or possibilities, but for this evidence to be admitted, and judged to be credible by the jury, the expert is subject to cross-examination.
This speaks to the issue of the logical fallacy of the "appeal to authority" as it validates the authority on the topic in question and shows that they do know what they are talking about.
Science does NOT make provision for expert testimony. For science the only definition applicable is the first one:
quote:
evidence -n
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment
Objective physical evidence.
Anyone who wants to discuss this aspect the {Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (RAZD and MurkyWaters only)} thread can do so here.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2006 8:21 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Nighttrain, posted 10-04-2006 9:57 PM RAZD has replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 4100 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 41 of 49 (354291)
10-04-2006 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by RAZD
10-04-2006 9:33 PM


Re: The Role of Evidence ... in Law and in Science
Law does make provision for the testimony of expert witnesses to obtain their opinion of certain facts or possibilities, but for this evidence to be admitted, and judged to be credible by the jury, the expert is subject to cross-examination.
And oft refuted by an expert brought in by the opposition.
We had a number of high-profile cases overthrown after a few years based on re-examining the forensics. Both times performed by 'experts'.
Objective physical evidence
I would suggest that physical evidence also be regarded as tentative,not necessarily objective, pending the exclusion of all or most possible explanations. Archaeology falls into this trap on many occasions by using either a predetermined mind-set for a find, or jumping to the first possible explanation. E.g., a ring found containing the name Jehu is located among ruins. This confirms the site was ruled by a king Jehu. Which ignores other possible causes such as a wandering nomad/soldier/merchant dropped it far from its place of discovery. Far-fetched? Watch your arche journal coming to a place near you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 10-04-2006 9:33 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 10-04-2006 10:29 PM Nighttrain has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1512 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 42 of 49 (354293)
10-04-2006 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Nighttrain
10-04-2006 9:57 PM


Re: The Role of Evidence ... in Law and in Science
And oft refuted by an expert brought in by the opposition.
Agreed. However one can also make reference to the Dover trial ...
We had a number of high-profile cases overthrown after a few years based on re-examining the forensics. Both times performed by 'experts'.
Thus demonstrating the fallacy of the appeal to authority -- they are not immune from making mistakes.
I would suggest that physical evidence also be regarded as tentative,not necessarily objective, pending the exclusion of all or most possible explanations. ... E.g., a ring found containing the name Jehu is located among ruins.
The ring is objective evidence, the location it was found in is objective evidence, the time period it was found in has objective evidence (various dating techniques), ...
... the interpretation of the data is subjective and subject to discussion.
Logically one can propose a series of ideas, hypothesis, to explain the evidence and then test them to see which one best explains the evidence.
The evidence is still evidence for all the hypothesis that attempt to explain the evidence, but some will do so better than others, and these are chosen as the most likely explanations:
  • The ring is evidence for the site being ruled by a king Jehu.
  • The ring is evidence for it being dropped by a wandering nomad/soldier/merchant far from its place of discovery.
  • The ring is evidence that someone else was also named Jehu.
  • The ring is a modern construct placed in the site by someone perpetuating a hoax.
  • etc.
The next thing to evaluate is whether there is evidence that invalidates any of these concepts to rule out ones that are falsified by other evidence, then you look at other data to see which concepts have more corroboration than others to whittle it down further. After that the issue is usually taken to Occam's bloody razor, where the simplest (most parsimonious) answer is judged most likely. Rarely does one get down to a single possibility, but you can get some closely related possibilities.
Archaeology falls into this trap on many occasions by using either a predetermined mind-set for a find, or jumping to the first possible explanation.
And the ensuing storm of criticism of such claims by other archaeologists soon show the viability of various other possible explanations. Look at the Homo floriensis issue for example eh?
Yes some scientists make assertions about what the evidence says that sometimes is ill considered (see issue of appeal to authority above), but the issue is still settled (as far as possible) by what the evidence shows AND what the best tested interpretation theory says about the evidence.
And willingness to look at all the possibilities and evaluate them and make conclusions based on the best explanation of the evidence rather than any preconceptions is where the courage issue lies.
Thanks.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Nighttrain, posted 10-04-2006 9:57 PM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Nighttrain, posted 10-05-2006 3:43 AM RAZD has replied

  
DorfMan
Member (Idle past 6188 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 43 of 49 (354308)
10-05-2006 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
09-24-2006 8:21 PM


waytoolong!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2006 8:21 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 10-05-2006 7:56 PM DorfMan has replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 4100 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 44 of 49 (354325)
10-05-2006 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by RAZD
10-04-2006 10:29 PM


Re: The Role of Evidence ... in Law and in Science
Lol. I figure if we rent you out to CSI-LasVegas, we can extend the series by at least a couple of seasons as you and Grissom go head to head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 10-04-2006 10:29 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 10-05-2006 7:57 PM Nighttrain has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1512 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 45 of 49 (354572)
10-05-2006 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by DorfMan
10-05-2006 1:34 AM


yes it has been.
See Paluxy Hike for some short stuff (glad I was wearing shorts anyway)

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by DorfMan, posted 10-05-2006 1:34 AM DorfMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by DorfMan, posted 10-06-2006 11:42 AM RAZD 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