|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3860 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Testing Theories of Origins | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Given the dishonesty on display here, I very much doubt that Ross's claim to have a successful creation model is any more true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Did you actually read what you were writing ?
So let us consider the "censorship test": Even if there is genuine censorship why should it be considered a strength of the idea itself ? Young Earth Creationists will object to Old Earth views because they consider them theologically unacceptable - whether the arguments are good or bad. And is there real censorship ? Ross says so, but there's precious little evidence. Wouldn't making false accusations of censorship be a good cover for a poor idea's lack of acceptance ? In fact it's a standard of the ID movement. Stultification: Here Ross is simply trying to repeat the dubious claim that Christianity is responsible for science. That's really not relevant to whether Ross's view's would stultify science or not. I suspect that they would - not to the degree that YECs would because Ross is prepared to accept more science, but there are limits to his tolerance. Integration: This is highly dubious as a general test. Why should particle physics have significant impacts in anthropology ? And isn't cosmology far more closely related to particle physics than it is to any subject outside physics and astronomy ? Research Passion: Why count science and engineering students as a measure of research passion ? Original research generally only starts with post-graduate work, and there are plenty of other reasons for getting a Bachelor's degree - especially in engineering ! Destiny Implications: Why is this even listed ? Isn't it really code for "theologically acceptable to Hugh Ross". Does it offer ANYTHING that wasn't already covered by "Integration" ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
He's proposing bogus tests and making bogus arguments to claim that his model passes them. That's pretty good evidence of dishonesty.
So are the bogus justifications you just posted. Why would Ross be doing this if his model really was as good as he claims ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: That YECs have been criticised for doing something does not make it a test of the scientific value or even the truth of their theories.
quote: I'd say that the Scopes trial was more about the quality of education - and about establishment of religion. Evolution had already won in scientific circles, and the law was obviously religious in nature.
quote: Of course the main problem is religious dogma placing certain conclusions beyond question.
quote: So is Ross going to abandon creationism ?
quote: But how does this show that integration is a good general test ? Isn't a large part of it because the YEC views on the age of the Earth are so far adrift ?
quote: Like to show me anyone who has been thrown in jail just for "criticising Darwin" ? And isn't this just an example of religion causing stultification ? Which Ross wants to support, quite possibly to the extent of censorship ?
quote: Well, please explain why it is a valid test.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
If you think that there's any good in these points that isn't already covered by predictive power and explanatory power I think we need to see it
quote: Can you really point to anyone saying that ? And can you point to any REAL censorship ?
quote: Nope, what's being said is "Hugh Ross's model probably performs badly on this test." That said, I'd put Lakatos' similar ideas about Research programs as a better version of this - but evolution performs well in that case. They'd probably be a better measure of research passion, too. (Surely just counting people getting BSc and B.Eng degrees is less important to that than the amount of productive research being done !)
quote: Nope, again. THe fact that YEC performs badly doesn't make it a good test. And really, is there anything that isn't adequately covered by explanatory power ?
quote: Note that this is NOT an example of integration. Which suggests that you don't even understand your "favorite" test.
quote: Nope. What is being said is that Ross doesn't attempt to make a good measure of research passion, and his own words suggest that religious stultification is the cause of the problem in America (we do not need to - and probably should not - assume that his comments are correct).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Essentially, parsimony is the idea that we should make as few assumptions as we can get away with. This can be a subtle point and counting assumptions is not always simple.
While this is not nearly as important overall as (genuine) explanatory or predictive power it can outweigh small increases in either. e.g. If the currently accepted theory adequately handles an event producing a better explanation would not necessarily be sufficient in itself to overthrow that theory. Supernatural theories tend to do very badly on this test because they often require a host of assumptions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Actually it's necessary because you can always add assumptions to any theory to save it from falsification (the Duhem-Quine thesis) - for instance the idea that phlogiston had negative mass, or the addition of epicycles to planetary orbits to keep geocentrism (the latter was a highly successful model of planetary motion).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
The important point about prediction is that the ANSWER is not known at the time that the prediction is made. Ross would agree with that, I'm sure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Well let's hear your defence of the censorship test.
As I see it, it has two main problems: 1) We can determine if a position is weak by directly examining it and the evidence. The censorship test can't add anything to that. So long as the idea and evidence are public the test isn't helpful. 2) As actually applied it seems to mean "opponents of a view that Hugh Ross doesn't like aren't given special privileges". Since this is both absurd and unfair I propose that the entire point of the test is to claim an undeserved advantage for one side - and that, according to you - is what the censorship test is really about. So if you were being fair you would have to admit that the "test" really shows that Ross's position is weak. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024