Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 9:23 PM
34 online now:
dwise1, edge, jar, JonF (4 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,976 Year: 12,012/19,786 Month: 1,793/2,641 Week: 302/708 Day: 77/52 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   YEC approaches to empirical investigation
Faith
Member
Posts: 32153
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 46 of 303 (242510)
09-12-2005 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Nuggin
09-12-2005 11:16 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
You can try to change her faith, but until it changes (and yes, it may not), these are the facts.

I'm speaking for Jar here, but I really don't believe that anyone here is trying to "change Faith".

What we are doing is a two pronged approach.

1) We are trying to show to the spectators that Faith is arguing a fantasy.

2) We are trying to stop people like Faith from destroying the education system in America.

If Faith never changes her mind, it doesn't change either of those two goals

Thank you for admitting what I'm saying. There is no real debate here. It's all a complete sham. Nobody has any intention of considering any idea that contradicts the Establishment position. That's why YECs need to be warned up front to STAY AWAY.

And once again, I have NO interest in the public school system whatever. You can have it. Christians should leave it en masse NOW.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Nuggin, posted 09-12-2005 11:16 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Nuggin, posted 09-12-2005 1:32 PM Faith has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 47 of 303 (242512)
09-12-2005 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ben!
09-12-2005 9:55 AM


The forensic science analogy
Ben writes:

This is (approximately) how some forensic science works. You have some data, and you have a known conclusion. You work at determining what's in between.


Yes, I have often noticed this similarity. ID suffers from the same problem.

Part of forensic science is investigating to try to determine what happened. But a part of forensic science occurs after you have a suspect, and you are attempting to produce a case that can be argued in court. It is this second aspect that is somewhat analogous to YEC thinking (and to ID thinking).

Let's remember that there have been a disturbing number of cases of innocent people on death row, as a result of this kind of forensic science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 9:55 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:56 AM nwr has not yet responded

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1817 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 48 of 303 (242513)
09-12-2005 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Nuggin
09-12-2005 11:18 AM


Re: I don't buy it
Present something close to what they are saying and we'll have a concensus, but you're just falsifying things to try and paint them in a good light.

Then keep pushing on the words I used to describe my perspective. I have no underlying interest in making YECs look good. I'm doing it because I think it's a workable perspective, and I think it draws a line in the EvC debate where people don't have to be at each others' throats in every thread.

By the way, I'm sorry I snapped at you. You and CK often make small jokes or parodies that exhibit your viewpoint in threads, and I look at those the same as simply asserting your position without addressing arguments. I don't thin that adds value to a discussion.

I shouldn't have got mad though. My bad.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Nuggin, posted 09-12-2005 11:18 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Nuggin, posted 09-12-2005 1:38 PM Ben! has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32153
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 49 of 303 (242514)
09-12-2005 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Ben!
09-12-2005 11:12 AM


Re: Forensic Science
Still from your perspective. The closest I can change this into the YEC perspective is, they know the guy was murdered before they can show it with evidence. Somehow they have special access to "truth" that transcends empricism.

OK, that's starting to get it said.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:12 AM Ben! has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 299 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 50 of 303 (242516)
09-12-2005 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Ben!
09-12-2005 11:16 AM


Stormy weather
If it helps, I'm on your side with trying to reach understanding of Faith's position through discussion. In answer to the question 'Is it science?' is no, faith works in the opposite manner from science. Is it any less valid? No. However science as a methodology and a philosophy has provided results for practical things such as engineering, finding oil etc. Science generally doesn't do very well with things such as getting spiritual or emotional results (though some might disagree even with that)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:16 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:59 AM Modulous has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15209
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 51 of 303 (242517)
09-12-2005 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
09-12-2005 11:26 AM


That wasn't my opinion, that was a fact. You would find my opinions even less palatable.

But real debate requires only that you are given a chance to make your case reasonably. The fact that you can't - relying on double standards, repeating discredited assertions and trying to shut down examination of contrary evidence or alternative explanations - shows the real problem. You don't HAVE a good case.

A sham debate is what you want - because you can't honestly win a real one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 11:26 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 12:15 PM PaulK has responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1817 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 52 of 303 (242519)
09-12-2005 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
09-12-2005 11:20 AM


Re: Forensic Science
Regardless if you've lost faith that EvC can draw a line and find a place for YECs or not, I think it needs to be made explicit. This thread is about defining term of a place for YECs. Can everybody accept it or not?

Well if you want them to understand my point of view they have to understand that it is that God Himself has spoken, and I'm not looking for a dead child I mistakenly believe to be alive.

It's high time people stopped working in "truth" and started working in psychology. I'm using an analogy, something that non-believers might be able to relate to. It's not about "seeing the truth." It's about simply being able to characterize each others positions.

I didn't say the child was dead. Lots of cases happen where the parent won't give up, and the child's skeleton is found years later and the parent finally grieves. There are many fewer cases, but still cases, where the parent actually finds a path that the experts did not, through simple tenacity and time, and finds the child.

I haven't come up with an intuitive case that is exactly analagous to your position AND is more intuitive to the others here. I think the analogy above is a pretty darn good one. I think it's good enough for people who want to understand. Any analogy is not a perfect match, so those who do not want to understand never have to. It is those who want to understand who ask questions, or make tentative statements (see Modulous' post). Those who do not, they tell you how wrong you are.

At least, that's my working assumption.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 11:20 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 12:01 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32153
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 53 of 303 (242521)
09-12-2005 11:50 AM


No point in continuing this that I can see
Thanks for trying, Ben, but it's a lost cause. The attitudes expressed on this thread are only too clear. My position on the Geology Data thread is thoroughly verified. There is no way a YEC's premise is going to be allowed here, and since that is the case the claim that debate is what goes on here is proven to be a big joke.
  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1817 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 54 of 303 (242525)
09-12-2005 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by nwr
09-12-2005 11:36 AM


Re: The forensic science analogy
nwr,

Let's remember that there have been a disturbing number of cases of innocent people on death row, as a result of this kind of forensic science.

I think that's a great point. There's a price YECs pay for not being able to use the scientific method, but instead this other method, and I think you've hit on the major one.

It's much more likely that they're led to a hyphothesis that is easily falisfied and unrecoverable (i.e. they have to start from scratch). The only way I can really describe this is if you look at the path they're taking in the error space.

In the scientific method, you start at some data, and you basically traverse the error space. You only have LOCAL goals (tentative hypotheses) that direct you, but no GLOBAL goals ("the truth"). Thus, you follow the terrain of the error space more closely, because local goals only perturb your path within the error space slightly (as compared to a global goal).

In this "forensic science" path, because there's a GLOBAL goal (to create a choronology of events which connect evidence to some final event), you no longer can follow the terrain of the error space. You're basically walking over it as if it's flat. That means, the path you virtually ignores the probability that you're in error. This is only slightly better than saying "you're shooting in the dark."

How much you're shooting in the dark depends on the quality of the evidence you collect. In forensic science, unless you get some decent evidence to start with, do they even bother trying? Faith is starting with NO evidence to guide her (at least none that I can see). And that means, she's basically shooting in the dark.

That's the inevitable consequence of the method she's taking. But I don't think she, or any YEC, has any choice. And that doesn't logically mean she can't find a way to reformulate science such that it fits YEC premises. It just means there's lots of reasons to think she's behind the 8 ball.

Anyway, nice comment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by nwr, posted 09-12-2005 11:36 AM nwr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 12:06 PM Ben! has responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1817 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 55 of 303 (242526)
09-12-2005 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Modulous
09-12-2005 11:42 AM


Re: Stormy weather
I agree. I wonder if you can make any sense out of my post to nwr. I don't know how else to describe it... well, maybe I can just copy/paste your comment next time haha.

Ben


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2005 11:42 AM Modulous has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32153
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 56 of 303 (242527)
09-12-2005 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Ben!
09-12-2005 11:46 AM


Re: Forensic Science
Regardless if you've lost faith that EvC can draw a line and find a place for YECs or not, I think it needs to be made explicit.

That is exactly what I have been doing, starting with my first post on IRH's thread, making it explicit. Everything being said confirms my view that debate is a sham because a YEC's premise is disallowed from the start.

This thread is about defining term of a place for YECs. Can everybody accept it or not?

Well if you want them to understand my point of view they have to understand that it is that God Himself has spoken, and I'm not looking for a dead child I mistakenly believe to be alive.

It's high time people stopped working in "truth" and started working in psychology. I'm using an analogy, something that non-believers might be able to relate to. It's not about "seeing the truth." It's about simply being able to characterize each others positions.

That's fine, but your way of characterizing mine just is not working. But I can't restate my premise in any case. God has spoken in His word and His word trumps science and there's no other way to state it.

I didn't say the child was dead. Lots of cases happen where the parent won't give up, and the child's skeleton is found years later and the parent finally grieves. There are many fewer cases, but still cases, where the parent actually finds a path that the experts did not, through simple tenacity and time, and finds the child.

OK, then I misunderstood. The way you described it, it simply sounded like a distraught parent who would not face a proven reality. I'm sorry I misunderstood you.

But it's still not a very close analogy. If I believe that God has spoken, and that the Flood happened, in fact that there's a ton of evidence FOR this already in the actual geological data, I don't think your analogy works.

Well, maybe you'll eventually find one that works better. I should probably leave you alone to do it without my interference.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:46 AM Ben! has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32153
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 57 of 303 (242529)
09-12-2005 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Ben!
09-12-2005 11:56 AM


Re: The forensic science analogy
The evidence is already what is in the possession of scientists, only at the moment it is burdened with evolutionist descriptions and explanations and assumptions. Free it from that baggage and a great deal of it supports creationism.

However, I'm holding to my original position: There's no room for YECs here at EvC and I see none developing on this thread. This is what needs to be made explicit and faced directly. No debate is possible because Science demands that YECs surrender our fundamental beliefs at the door. Really, this NEEDS to be made VERY explicit. I see no basis whatever for a resolution to this conflict.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:56 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 12:47 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 299 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 58 of 303 (242530)
09-12-2005 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
09-12-2005 11:20 AM


Re: Forensic Science
and here at EvC what that means is that debating it is impossible as the deck is stacked against creationists.

That's only really true when it comes to science. The two philosophies are often at odds with one another. If you wanted to propose a faith based debate or a philosophical one, then the deck is not stacked. A science based one will be stacked for evolutionists because their conclusions are scientific consensus.

However, it works the other way too. The deck is stacked against evolutionists if we start with "The Bible is inerrant, the flood actually happened". Then there is simply 'nothing more to discuss', re the flood. It then becomes a discussion of RATE type things, which nobody here accepts. It's probably best to find a site with a lot of creationists on there with which to discuss it. Fred Williams would love to have you on his site I'm sure. Tell him I sent you :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 11:20 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by CK, posted 09-12-2005 12:11 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 3:15 PM Modulous has responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2323 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 59 of 303 (242532)
09-12-2005 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Modulous
09-12-2005 12:07 PM


Re: Forensic Science
We have to be careful not to conflate two seperate positions:

1) YEC is true because I can show this with science

2) Yes is true because God says so and I can show this with science

The positions are different

And of course the more usual position

2) YEC is true because God says so and because the evidence against OEC is........


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2005 12:07 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 12:51 PM CK has responded
 Message 66 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2005 12:55 PM CK has not yet responded

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1817 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 60 of 303 (242536)
09-12-2005 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by PaulK
09-12-2005 11:42 AM


You don't HAVE a good case.

That's for sure.

But real debate requires only that you are given a chance to make your case reasonably. The fact that you can't - relying on double standards

I think it only appears this way. I opened this thread to try and show why it looks that way, but it's not.

repeating discredited assertions

Well, that's not something she would want to do, if she's serious about actually finding an explanation of the flood consistent with known observation. She's got her work cut out for her, because she's doing the work of literally thousands of people. So I'm sure she tries to find alternatives that work for her such that she doesn't have to do all the work herself. I can see how that would lead to using discredited assertions. So, I hope when you point it out (by pointing to the evidence that discredits the assertions), she responds by modifying the assertion.

trying to shut down examination of contrary evidence

This should never happen. This is against the "rules of the game" at EvC. And it's against the heart of what YECs are trying to do anyway. I hope it doesn't happen; if it does, it's up to the admins (including myself) to not let it pass. Yes, I know it's been going on. I also hope that by opening this thread and starting to examine the empirical methods available to YECs, that YECs can understand IT'S TO THEIR ADVANTAGE to face the discrediting evidence directly. That type of evidence is the evidence that will shape their alternative hypotheses the most.

or alternative explanations

This is what I think can be dangerous. I'm sure sometimes Faith DOES simply reject alternative explanations out of hand, because the conclusions go against her faith-based information. So, at least when she's working on finding an alternative model herself, she actually has grounds for rejecting the alternative explanations.

Those who reject models without attempting to replace them? I would say, there's no excuse for that type of behavior. Those who reject models while trying to replace them? They may be right or wrong, but I think it's important that we always allow that. I think in the history of science, we see what, 99.9% crackpots and 0.1% visionaries? peaceharris? JAD? Brad McFall? All are doing similar things. Maybe EvC will have a visionary pass through. Maybe it will be Faith. Maybe it will be Brad. It's not gonna be JAD... and I respect peaceharris' efforts and questions, though I can't respect the conclusions yet.

A sham debate is what you want - because you can't honestly win a real one.

I hope we can hold a real debate, where evidence is not dodged, and alternative explanations are not rejected without working on new ones to replace them. It's my goal, both as a member and as an admin, to create a cleaner space for such a thing to happen. Right now, in my opinion, everything ALWYAS get muddled by the emotions and randomized thoughts of off-topic discussion and personal attacks.

I think IRH's offer was a generous one, and it outlines exactly what has to happen. I've never seen it follow through. And you can see on that thread, even with all the hoopla and warning about keeping the thread clean... it doesn't stay clean.

Let's work together on getting it cleaner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2005 11:42 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2005 12:38 PM Ben! has responded
 Message 134 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-12-2005 11:55 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
56
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019