Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-16-2019 12:51 AM
33 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: lopezeast0211
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume:
Total: 856,807 Year: 11,843/19,786 Month: 1,624/2,641 Week: 133/708 Day: 0/67 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   YEC approaches to empirical investigation
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1814 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 76 of 303 (242574)
09-12-2005 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by jar
09-12-2005 1:10 PM


Re: A direct question
It's a strange question to me jar, I'm uncomfortable with accepting the terms you phrased it in. The phrase "incontrovertible evidence" doesn't exist in my psychological-perspective world view.

Empiricists follow the evidence, except when they have underlying hangups, things that they cannot believe based on faith. I mentioned in another thread, if God appeared in the clouds and waved at me (or, to satisfy Faith, I changed this to if I heard God speak to me), would I believe it's God? I don't know, it depends on how deeply I've accepted the assumption that what I see doesn't exist. I know that some people would explain it as a hoax without even bothering to investigate. Even if I investigated... I don't know. I don't know how deep the assumption lies.

Does that give you a hint as to what's in my mind? I'm sorry I can't answer the question directly. I'm not trying to dodge it, just it doesn't fit well in my world view.

Ben

P.S. Jar I always enjoy your "direct questions" :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by jar, posted 09-12-2005 1:10 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1814 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 77 of 303 (242577)
09-12-2005 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by CK
09-12-2005 1:17 PM


Re: Forensic Science
I see. Well if that's the case, then I understand. In that case, somebody trying to skip something like that would need to be stopped; there's no moving on in that case. If a poster can't see that, then that's when the moderation has to step in...

P.S. I hope no YEC goes on to debate the validity of your assertions...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by CK, posted 09-12-2005 1:17 PM CK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by CK, posted 09-12-2005 1:24 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2946 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 78 of 303 (242578)
09-12-2005 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Ben!
09-12-2005 12:32 PM


Ben writes:

There could be the Brad McFall: YEC version out there; someone who is working independently (I think Brad is) and who hasn't finished his/her work yet.

Accounting for all the supervolcano eruptions within a YEC timeframe would be a toughie. I can't think of a way to do it without killing pretty much all life on Earth. And I'm pretty sure that accounting for all the Ice Ages would require boiling the oceans.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 12:32 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 1:26 PM DominionSeraph has responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2320 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 79 of 303 (242579)
09-12-2005 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Ben!
09-12-2005 1:22 PM


Re: Forensic Science
But I've never SEEN a YEC case that does not require that!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 1:22 PM Ben! has not yet responded

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1814 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 80 of 303 (242580)
09-12-2005 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Rahvin
09-12-2005 1:18 PM


Proposal
Did you see my Post 64? What do you think of the proposal layed out at the bottom of it?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Rahvin, posted 09-12-2005 1:18 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Rahvin, posted 09-12-2005 1:33 PM Ben! has responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1814 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 81 of 303 (242581)
09-12-2005 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by DominionSeraph
09-12-2005 1:23 PM


I really want to avoid going into specifics on this thread, I think it's really easy to start debating the positions, rather than the methods.

...

Boy it's hard to resist the temptation. But I'm going to do it. I'll say, I hope we'll have the opportunity to bring that up on a YEC-empirical thread.

Ben


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by DominionSeraph, posted 09-12-2005 1:23 PM DominionSeraph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by DominionSeraph, posted 09-12-2005 1:50 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1814 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 82 of 303 (242582)
09-12-2005 1:27 PM


ON TOP OF IT
Whew. I caught up. Only 2 1/2 hours of firestorm.

"I've had worse"

I'm sure it'll start up later tonight again. Mod, Rahvin, hold down the fort for me! :)


  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 685 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 83 of 303 (242585)
09-12-2005 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Faith
09-12-2005 11:32 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
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.

I agree with what you are saying, but disagree with how you are saying it.

Your suggestion seems to be that both sides are arguing from a stand point of "I accept this conclusion to be true, and no amount of argument will change that."

The reason ToErs get so frustrated with YECrs is that you think that we are just as willing to give in as you are. We aren't.

For the record, our possition is very simple. "We believe what the evidence shows us to be correct."

The more evidence that indicates the same thing, the more reason we have to believe it. The more reliable that information, the more reason to believe it. The more testable that information, the more reason to believe it.

This is dramatically different from "We believe that this one source of information is more valuable than all other information combined."

These two possitions can never come to agreement, so debate is futile.

And if you truly are hands off about the schools, then I have absolutely no problem with you going the rest of your life with your beliefs.

I think we both can agree that what an individual does in the privacy of their own home is their business and no one elses.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 11:32 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by jar, posted 09-12-2005 1:36 PM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 12:00 AM Nuggin has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1379 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 84 of 303 (242586)
09-12-2005 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Ben!
09-12-2005 1:24 PM


Re: Proposal
Sorry, I had missed it.

Your suggestions look good, but I would prefer more specifics. In other words, a requiremnt that, if the Bible is to be assumed to be literally true, it must be stated in the OP, and debate alond Biblical lines is to be considered off-topic, with the possible exception of folks like Arach stopping by to point out different translations.

And entirely new section is the best fit, and it would actually allow literalists like Faith who are frequently booted from the Science foums to have a place to debate this sort of topic. I'm just not sure if the Admin staff wants to open up yet another debate section.

You should post this idea in the Suggestions forum.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 1:24 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 1:38 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31060
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 85 of 303 (242587)
09-12-2005 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Nuggin
09-12-2005 1:32 PM


And passing the question on to you.
See Message 72


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Nuggin, posted 09-12-2005 1:32 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1814 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 86 of 303 (242589)
09-12-2005 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Rahvin
09-12-2005 1:33 PM


Re: Proposal
Sorry, I had missed it.

Haha well THAT's understandable.

Your suggestions look good, but I would prefer more specifics. In other words, a requiremnt that, if the Bible is to be assumed to be literally true, it must be stated in the OP, and debate alond Biblical lines is to be considered off-topic, with the possible exception of folks like Arach stopping by to point out different translations.

Good idea.

You should post this idea in the Suggestions forum.

Sure. I'll probably wait to sift through more comments, but it looks like we're coming up with something that may prove to be useful. So I'll do that within the next couple of days.

Cool.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Rahvin, posted 09-12-2005 1:33 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 685 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 87 of 303 (242590)
09-12-2005 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Ben!
09-12-2005 11:38 AM


Re: I don't buy it
I look at those the same as simply asserting your position without addressing arguments

Why should I be held to a standard higher than the YECs?

I admit, if I want my point to be credible, then I need to back up my argument, but frankly I think this board needs some more of us Dark Side ToErs.

The YECs will never understand our frustration until they are faced with having to debate their own style of debate.

I noticed the none of them took on my "Crack Pot" ideas thread, because they know that when faced with their techniques, all that can come is frustration.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:38 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 1:43 PM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 137 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 12:19 AM Nuggin has responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1814 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 88 of 303 (242591)
09-12-2005 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Nuggin
09-12-2005 1:38 PM


Re: I don't buy it
I noticed the none of them took on my "Crack Pot" ideas thread, because they know that when faced with their techniques, all that can come is frustration.

If I said "two wrongs don't make a right", would you physically attack me?

For me, it's that old saying that I"ve been trained under. It's not a mental philosophy. So I try to do it because ... it;s just "what I am." (Trying not to use judgemental-sounding words)

I admit, if I want my point to be credible, then I need to back up my argument, but frankly I think this board needs some more of us Dark Side ToErs.

LOL!! In all seriousness... can you put that in your signature? That would make my day.

Honestly speaking, I really do understand. I'm the kind of person who feels bad doing soemthing I think isn't "right"; it's just my training, my upbringing. As I get older, I'm getting to be more practical. It's actually a little strange for me to see myself start such an "idealistic" thread, and try and fight fight fight to argue for "what is right."

I noticed the none of them took on my "Crack Pot" ideas thread, because they know that when faced with their techniques, all that can come is frustration.

I was disappointed too. All I'm trying to ask from people is a little self-realization. People who are religious HAVE to understand that their behavior is the same behavior we would expect from people if there's no gods and they're just making stuff up. I don't care about talking what's "right" or "wrong", but let's at least be honest.

It's one of the big areas where I have a lot of respect for jar. He's got his flaws, but I think he has a really realistic vision of who he is and the realities of his beliefs and positions. It's also what makes him a really good moderator. He pays attention to his own behavior.

This message has been edited by Ben, Monday, 2005/09/12 10:45 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Nuggin, posted 09-12-2005 1:38 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 685 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 89 of 303 (242592)
09-12-2005 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Ben!
09-12-2005 12:47 PM


Re: The forensic science analogy
Maybe we need "YEC Emprical" forums, where this methodology is the standard, and people must follow the rules of this methodology:

There's no point to such forums as the debate would always be as follows:

Poster 1: YEC is fact.
Poster 2: Navaja Creation is fact.
Poster 3: Norse Creation is fact.
Repeat.

If you establish at the outset than anyone's personal belief regards of fact/evidence is empirically true, there's no room/reason for discussion.

It would be a nice opportunity for people to tell their individual beliefs, but discussion is out of the question


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 12:47 PM Ben! has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2005 2:43 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2946 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 90 of 303 (242593)
09-12-2005 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Ben!
09-12-2005 1:26 PM


Ben writes:

I think it's really easy to start debating the positions, rather than the methods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

"In inductive inference, confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study. To compensate for this observed human tendency, the scientific method is constructed so that we must try to disprove our hypotheses. See falsifiability.

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweight evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis. As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence."

Better?

(edit to include the first paragraph of the entry, as that addresses how science compensates.)

This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 09-12-2005 01:57 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 1:26 PM Ben! has not yet responded

Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
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