Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,584 Year: 4,841/9,624 Month: 189/427 Week: 102/85 Day: 7/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
ICANT
Member (Idle past 106 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 976 of 1725 (604025)
02-09-2011 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 962 by DrJones*
02-09-2011 2:11 AM


Re: Dust to dust!
Hi Jones,
DrJones writes:
why would moving all the water to one place move all the land to one other place?
I did not say all the land was in one place.
There is wet land under the water. Even though some of it has miles of water on top of it.
I did say 'dry land' protruded out of the water and that dry land was in one place just as Pangea puts forth.
Now to try to find the topic. The man who wrote Genesis 1:9 would be one of our ancestors. That man wrote information that no other man had until recently.
Either he had outside help giving him that information or as Zong says he was very lucky, and not just on this one occasion.
If he had outside help bluegenes so called theory is falsified.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 962 by DrJones*, posted 02-09-2011 2:11 AM DrJones* has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 977 of 1725 (604034)
02-09-2011 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 971 by New Cat's Eye
02-09-2011 1:15 PM


Re: possibilities and probabilities
Its better to realize that its the positive evidence of the desk being unblocked by a pen that leads us to conclude that there is no pen on the desk.
Isn't this just another way to say: "we have desk" and "we have no evidence of pen"? By combining it all into a single statement, 'evidence of the desk unblocked by a pen', you're just secretly slipping in an 'absence of evidence' claim.
No one disagrees that the desk exists. How does mentioning its existence change matters any? Aren't you still left with what you had before, a desk with no evidence of a pen?
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 971 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-09-2011 1:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 991 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-10-2011 12:04 PM Jon has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2185 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 978 of 1725 (604043)
02-09-2011 8:07 PM


On philosophy, desks, and pens. And the town drunk.
You want to know if there is a pen on the desk or not?
1) Hire any kind of scientist and have him/her take a look. Heck, you could hire the town drunk. Either will tell you "Yes, there is a pen" or "No, there is no pen."
2) Do not let any philosophers anywhere near the investigation or you'll never know the answer.

Replies to this message:
 Message 979 by onifre, posted 02-09-2011 8:51 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied
 Message 983 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2011 12:56 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 3030 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 979 of 1725 (604048)
02-09-2011 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 978 by Coyote
02-09-2011 8:07 PM


Re: On philosophy, desks, and pens. And the town drunk.
Thank you, Coyote. Well fucking said.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 978 by Coyote, posted 02-09-2011 8:07 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1484 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 980 of 1725 (604055)
02-09-2011 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 975 by Modulous
02-09-2011 3:49 PM


what's one logical fallacy when you can have another ...
Hi Modulus,
I continue to be surprised that people will assert the maxim as if it were some absolute truth seemingly just because it has a nice ring to it. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is cool to say too...
Properly speaking, the absence of evidence is not by itself (negative) evidence (of absence), rather it is evidence of the absence of (positive) evidence - in the areas where evidence has been sought, and with the methodology\technology used to look for (positive) evidence.
If you only look in area {A} and do not find positive evidence, that means that positive evidence is currently not available within area {A}, it says nothing about positive or negative evidence in area {B} ≠ {A} nor about positive or negative evidence in area {A} at different times or with different methodology\technology/s.
As an example, you could say (as an hypothetical analogy) that the causes of disease before we were capable of seeing\observing bacteria, were looked for with the current (then) technology and no natural source was found. Because disease was observed, and lives were at stake, they then concluded that the absence of evidence for a natural cause was evidence of absence of a natural cause, and thus posited a supernatural cause. When the technology allowed a different methodology that included observation and experimentation with bacteria, then a natural cause was found.
Now a theist could argue (and some have) that this just shows how a supernatural cause was implemented, the bacteria were the tool used by the supernatural cause, and the supernatural cause would explain why the bacteria were used to cause disease. This gets to the area of non-falsification, however, and also does not necessarily provide any further information of use in treating the disease/s. It also gets into trying to second guess supernatural motives, which is an endless rabbit hole on these forums.
quote:
Tragic mistakes are sometimes made in this sphere even so; but if the standard is set too high - if what is required is a conclusive proof of harmlessness that cannot ever be given--consumers will be denied what may prove to be valuable, even lifesaving, medical treatments... ... Not to draw a conclusion, in some cases, is as much a breach of correct reasoning as it would be to draw a mistaken conclusion.
Here we have a situation where lives are at stake, as opposed to a quiet armchair discussion of comparative opinions, and this changes the need to make a decision, not the accuracy of that decision. I actually addressed this situation in the discussion of Agnosticism (An Exploration Into"Agnosticism", Message 143)
quote:
question
                    |
        is there sufficient valid
     information available to decide
       |                        |
      yes                       no
       |                        |
   decide based               is a
   on empirical             decision
  valid evidence            necessary?
      (A)                  /         \
                         yes          no ... but ...
                         /            |             |
                      decide         why          make a
                     based on       decide       decision
                    inadequate      at this       anyway
                     evidence        time?       based on
                      =guess         =wait       opinion
                       (B)            (C)          (D)
Where "D" people make up their minds for no apparent reason other than it is based on their opinion of reality.
This would include people that use incomplete evidence , Confirmation Bias, Cognitive Dissonance and ide fixes, as part of their worldview. Yes, this would include a lot of theists as well as atheists.
Of course it is difficult to argue that this last category is a rational decision based on logical conclusions and sufficient empirical evidence.
When you have inadequate information for a valid conclusion and lives are at stake you will make a decision based on the information available ... and the opinions of the people making the decision regarding what they think is their best guess in the circumstance/s. Condition {B} answers the concern of needing to reach a decision when life is at stake, it does not say that the conclusion is valid, nor does it answer the concerns of those politely debating opinions in comfort of an easy-chair and a glass of their favorite beverage (aka xongsmith's scenario re how science is not done).
If lives are not at stake, then the logical position is {C} - waiting until you can have sufficient evidence to move to {A}, either with new information or new technology.
Likewise you can only calculate the probability of the absence from the lack of positive evidence within area {A} when you know the relative sizes of {A} and {B} ...
... with the probability becoming higher as {A} approaches {B}, however until the point that {A} = {B} is reached there is still a possibility that positive evidence exists within {B}, and the relative improbability is inconsequential if the truth is that positive evidence does lie in area {B} ≠ {A} no matter how large {A} is, ...
... as probability calculations, like opinions, are strangely incapable of controlling reality, they are based on properly knowing reality to be accurate, and can be highly inaccurate when reality is not known.
One thinks of the Coelacanth in the days before the modern species were found: the evidence only existed in the fossil record of shallow sea beds until ~60 million years ago. The evidence from trawling the seas of the world, and taking oceanographic samples with the then latest technology, did not show any positive evidence of extant Coelacanths, although there was evidence of other aquatic life from pre-60 million years ago (sharks etc). The actual probability of finding the modern Coelacanth was very small - using crashfrogs outcome space and probability calculations - the area occupied by the current species is a small fraction of a percentage of the available space in the oceans of the world ... and yet the truth was that Coelacanths did exist === the absence of (positive) evidence was not (negative) evidence (of absence). There are many cases where this is found to be the case.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 975 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2011 3:49 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 981 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2011 9:59 PM RAZD has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 981 of 1725 (604058)
02-09-2011 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 980 by RAZD
02-09-2011 9:22 PM


Properly speaking, the absence of evidence is not by itself (negative) evidence (of absence), rather it is evidence of the absence of (positive) evidence - in the areas where evidence has been sought, and with the methodology\technology used to look for (positive) evidence.
Not properly speaking. It is quite proper to say that the absence of evidence for a thing is evidence for its absence - under the right circumstances. As the noted logician Copi pointed out:
quote:
In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.
Now, as coyote pointed out, 'qualified investigators' when we're looking for a pen on a desk is a pretty low standard.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of the absence of evidence. The absence of evidence is the absence of evidence. It is not evidence for itself.
If you only look in area {A} and do not find positive evidence, that means that positive evidence is currently not available within area {A}
And we're talking about area {A} only. When we look there are two hypothesis
1. The pen is on the desk (evidence: I can see a pen)
2. The pen is not on the desk (evidence: I can not seen a pen on the desk, and I have reason to suppose it is likely that if a pen was present I'd see it).
The absence of the evidence for 1 just happens to be the evidence for 2.
It's really basic logic.
One thinks of the Coelacanth in the days before the modern species were found: the evidence only existed in the fossil record of shallow sea beds until ~60 million years ago. The evidence from trawling the seas of the world, and taking oceanographic samples with the then latest technology, did not show any positive evidence of extant Coelacanths, although there was evidence of other aquatic life from pre-60 million years ago (sharks etc). The actual probability of finding the modern Coelacanth was very small - using crashfrogs outcome space and probability calculations - the area occupied by the current species is a small fraction of a percentage of the available space in the oceans of the world ... and yet the truth was that Coelacanths did exist === the absence of (positive) evidence was not (negative) evidence (of absence). There are many cases where this is found to be the case.
And when the marine biologist looked in his bath and noticed there were no Coelacanths in there - did he consider this absence of evidence of a Coelecanth reasonable enough evidence for its absence so that he could try the non life-saving act of relaxing in the bath without squashing a rare specimen? I suspect so.
We're not talking about hunting elusive species, unfalsifiable supernatural motivations or anything like that. We're talking obvious mundane things and obvious mundane environments that they may or may not be presently found in in a hypothetical example.
You don't need to worry about this undermining all your arguments that have Venn diagrams talking about larger search areas and unknowable search areas. It's nothing to do with that - unfalsifiable escape hatches remain unfalsified; we're just talking about whether or not you could ever support the claim, "There is no pen on the desk.", with evidence. I suggest that absence of any evidence of a pen being on the desk despite twelve competent people independently looking for it is evidence that every rational person and a few irrational ones, would accept without any lives being on the line or having to resort to mere 'opinion'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 980 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2011 9:22 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1000 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2011 2:00 PM Modulous has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2777 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 982 of 1725 (604059)
02-09-2011 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 961 by ICANT
02-09-2011 1:59 AM


Re: Dust to dust!
Hi, ICANT.
ICANT writes:
Bluejay writes:
To suggest this as evidence that the writer knew about Pangaea before it the existence of Pangaea was discovered by science is, at best, highly tenuous.
I doubt if the word Pangea existed when Genesis 1:9 was written.
But the man that wrote it knew that at one time all the water was in one place and dry land protruded out of it.
My position is that all the waters in today's oceans are also "in one place," because they are all interconnected such that ships and animals can move between them: they just have multiple masses of dry land protruding out of them.
Without specifically stating that the dry land is also all in one place (which Genesis does not do), we can't really say for sure that Genesis 1:9 is referring to a single landmass.
So, maybe Genesis 1:9 was written by somebody who knew about the ancient supercontinent of Pangaea, and maybe it wasn't. It's not really clear which is the case.
I think Bluegenes was being quite generous when he agreed to count this as "a little bit of noise" in his theory.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 961 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2011 1:59 AM ICANT has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1546 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 983 of 1725 (604092)
02-10-2011 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 978 by Coyote
02-09-2011 8:07 PM


Re: On philosophy, desks, and pens. And the town drunk.
2) Do not let any philosophers anywhere near the investigation or you'll never know the answer.
Philosophy is primarily an endeavor whose purpose is the destruction of human knowledge. Luckily, as it has no rigor, it's self-hampering.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 978 by Coyote, posted 02-09-2011 8:07 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 984 by Modulous, posted 02-10-2011 9:30 AM crashfrog has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 984 of 1725 (604138)
02-10-2011 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 983 by crashfrog
02-10-2011 12:56 AM


Philosophy is primarily an endeavor whose purpose is the destruction of human knowledge.
You could certainly argue that RAZD and to a lesser extent CS are engaged in an asinine argument with the intent of shoring up their theological apologetics with an old solid-sounding aphorism.
It should be noted, the aphorism is credited to a scientist (who I believe was specifically talking about life elsewhere in the universe. rather than proposing a general law of empiricist logic), and I've not seen any philosophers that have argued that is generally true. You might be able to find some, but then again, you can find some people that qualify as scientists that engage in pseudoscience like ID.
I know - you'd prefer to express your disdain for philosophy, despite philosophy having a rigorous answer to this issue (which basically agrees with your own). Of course, to the anti-philsophy types, when philosophers are 'rigorous' they are being reasonable or they are being normal or logicians or even scientists! But when science minded folks make asinine, stubborn or plain stupid arguments that fly in the face of all reason: they are doing philosophy. Anyway, here is another philosopher, who stated the obvious in case the likes of RAZD were in doubt.
Peter van Inwagen writes:
If the present argument appeals to any general epistemological principle, it is this rather obvious one: If a proposition is such that, if it were true, we should have evidence for its truth, and if we are aware that it has this property, and if we have no evidence for its truth, the fact that we have no evidence for its truth, is (conclusive) evidence for its falsity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 983 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2011 12:56 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 992 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2011 12:15 PM Modulous has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 145 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 985 of 1725 (604139)
02-10-2011 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 970 by xongsmith
02-09-2011 12:16 PM


Re: The issue is settled?
X writes:
I have not seen any myself. Now - note that right there you did NOT specify objective scientific evidence published in peer-reviewed journals, so, for example, Iano's subjective evidence would qualify for him.
How does Iano's subjective "evidence" for the existence of Jesus (or whetever) differ from Iano's belief that Jesus caused this expereince?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 970 by xongsmith, posted 02-09-2011 12:16 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 988 by xongsmith, posted 02-10-2011 11:24 AM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 145 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 986 of 1725 (604140)
02-10-2011 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 972 by Blue Jay
02-09-2011 1:37 PM


Re: Peanut Gallery of the Peanut Gallery
10 out of 10 for art appreciation......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 972 by Blue Jay, posted 02-09-2011 1:37 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 145 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 987 of 1725 (604142)
02-10-2011 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 968 by Jon
02-09-2011 11:53 AM


Re: Literacy
Jon writes:
What does their current discussion have to do with whether or not RAZDs comments on 'subjective evidence' were meant to relate to 'deities'?
The fact that in his current discussion (which this peanut gallery is following) RAZD is quite indisputably citing subjective evidence of deities. Duh!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 968 by Jon, posted 02-09-2011 11:53 AM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 993 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-10-2011 12:19 PM Straggler has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2600
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 988 of 1725 (604154)
02-10-2011 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 985 by Straggler
02-10-2011 10:07 AM


Re: The issue is settled?
Straggler writes:
How does Iano's subjective "evidence" for the existence of Jesus (or whatever) differ from Iano's belief that Jesus caused this experience?
I have no idea, but I would venture to guess that there is no difference. Anyway, I doubt that you & I have a different value attached to such "evidence" in the matter at hand: zero.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 985 by Straggler, posted 02-10-2011 10:07 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 996 by Straggler, posted 02-10-2011 1:12 PM xongsmith has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 989 of 1725 (604156)
02-10-2011 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 974 by New Cat's Eye
02-09-2011 3:07 PM


Re: possibilities and probabilities
CS, the entirety of your "argument" rests on semantic gymnastics.
You are drawing a distinction between "observing the entire surface of a desk unblocked by a pen" and "failing to observe a pen when searching a desk." These two statements mean the same thing. You are drawing a distinction without a difference so that you can play word games and maintain your pre-established position that an absence of evidence can never be evidence of absence, even when the evidence is specific and expected, and the area in question is limited and easily searched.
Or I'm right, and you're the one playing semantic games so that you can claim that the absence of evidence can be evidence of absence.
...except that I showed very clearly and accurately that your doublespeak is the equivalent of my own claim rearranged such that it appears to support the opposite.
"The absence of an expected observation of a pen" is the equivalent of "the observation of a desk unblocked by a pen." There's absolutely zero difference between the two statements, except that in your version you use obvious doublespeak to try to make them sound different.
Again, you're drawing a distinction without a difference. You're saying, very iterally, "A is not evidence of B. A is evidence of B." You are simultaneously making two mutually exclusive claims.
But really, is there any use in speculating one another's motives rather than arguing the positions like we're s'posed to?
I don't really care about the semantic argument, but if someone asked me if there was a pen on the desk, the desk tells me the answer, not the non-evidence of a pen.
I am arguing the position. Just because being wrong makes you feel like an idiot or pointing out your cognitive dissonance makes you feel uncomfortable doesn't make anything I've said argumentum ad hominem. I've stated my case clearly and consistently from the beginning, showing a very simple and clear case that illustrates that an absence of evidence, when that evidence is expected, is evidence of absence. You are the one who's played semantic gymnastics and tried to restate the absence of evidence in a way that frames it as positive evidence; you're the one drawing a distinction withotu a difference; you're the one using doublespeak.
I think you'd fit in just fine in Orwell's dystopia.
You do this because you want to be able to cling to a tired and misused maxim, that an absence of evidence can never be evidence of absence, even though it is childishly easy to demonstrate scenarios where that maxim is false.
Seems you would've went ahead an demonstrated you're correct rather than attacking my character...
I did. You then tried to claim that I'm just as guilty of semantic gymnastics as you are. The difference is that I fully described and illustrated why your version is just a misleading restatement of my own words, that you've drawn a distinction where there is no difference.
How does it feel to have such strong cognitive dissonance?
I don't know. What's it feel like to be such a douche?
I'm more than happy to come across as a douche in the process of destroying an argument. I couldn't care less if you like me. Is the widdle baby going to cwy now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 974 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-09-2011 3:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 990 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-10-2011 11:59 AM Rahvin has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 990 of 1725 (604161)
02-10-2011 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 989 by Rahvin
02-10-2011 11:36 AM


Re: possibilities and probabilities
...except that I showed very clearly and accurately that your doublespeak is the equivalent of my own claim rearranged such that it appears to support the opposite.
Which doesn't show that yours is the correct one.
If you want to call it "slowing down" and I want to call it "negetive acceleration", then you showing how they're the same doesn't mean that one is better than the other. And to then speculate about my motives and feeling about calling it the way I do is just pathetic.
I am arguing the position. Just because being wrong makes you feel like an idiot or pointing out your cognitive dissonance makes you feel uncomfortable
Speculating on my motives and feelings is not arguing the position. And there's good reasons why its against the rules.
I did. You then tried to claim that I'm just as guilty of semantic gymnastics as you are. The difference is that I fully described and illustrated why your version is just a misleading restatement of my own words, that you've drawn a distinction where there is no difference.
If there's no difference in describing it as an absence of evidence or describing it as evidence of an absence, then neither one of us is wrong.
But whatever, if you'd rather be a jerk than explain yourself then I'll just stop responding to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 989 by Rahvin, posted 02-10-2011 11:36 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 994 by Rahvin, posted 02-10-2011 12:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024