|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What convinced you of Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thronacx Inactive Member |
And I quote:
"A statistical generalization is a statement which is usually true, but not always true. Very often these are expressed using the word "most", as in "Most conservatives favour welfare cuts." Sometimes the word "generally" is used, as in "Conservatives generally favour welfare cuts." Or, sometimes, no specific word is used at all, as in: "Conservatives favour welfare cuts."Fallacies involving statistical generalizations occur because the generalization is not always true. Thus, when an author treats a statistical generalization as though it were always true or indicative of a trend, the author commits a fallacy." End Quote. Copi and Cohen: 100 "Philosophical Reasoning" This is just one of thousands of sources ranging from plato to present day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
Boy, this thread moves fast. Anyhow, whoever it was who asked me how I base my belief in evolution on my eyesight ... remember the old saying, "out of sight - out of mind?" Well, on the other hand ... "in sight - in mind."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6041 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
Yes, treating a statistical generalization as always true is a fallacy. A generalization itself is not a fallacy. And Truthlover was explicitly NOT treating a generalization as always true - read his post.
So, you are wrong. A "generalization" is not a logical fallacy. Treating a statistical generalization as always true is. Saying "Southerners can't read" is NOT a logical fallacy. Starting with "These Southerners can't read" and concluding "All Southerners can't read" is a logical fallacy; that is what your quote is talking about. You are wrong in claiming Truthlover committed such an error, as he explicitly stated the generalization was not always true, so he could not possibly be taking a statistical trend to be always true. You are piling error upon error. [This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-05-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
And I think my non-admin counterpart may have triggered a fair part of it.
It would seem to be, that this topic is intended to be a "evolutionists reply only" type thing. Of course, such is doomed to break down (after all, the general concept is debate). Still, I think we need to try to focus more on the "evo's" side of why they became an "evo" Another piece of high quality moderator guidance, no extra charge,Adminnemooseus [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-05-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1018 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
quote:Considering most people have very limited understanding of science in general, I'd say it's a dangerous and ridiculous proposition to assume anyone other than the experts should be interpreting data. As for Creationist experts, sure, there are some that profess to be experts and they might be, but they are far from being professionals. A professional would not sign a belief statement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hello, Abshalom.
My question was directed at Thronacx. He/she is trying to discredit evolution by the old "it's all a matter of how you interpret the data" argument. A silly argument, since when taken to its extreme one can never know anything, one can never be certain about anything. Criminal trials, for example, are based on the idea that one can be very reasonably certain about unseen events based on factual evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
AM says "Good topic, but off-topic".
I think (evo side bias admitted) that the "blind men and the Elephant" analogy is worth persuing, but I deserves a topic of its own. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thronacx Inactive Member |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering most people have very limited understanding of science in general, I'd say it's a dangerous and ridiculous proposition to assume anyone other than the experts should be interpreting data. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- So I suppose then that jury's are dangerous and riduculous because their not forensic experts? Seems like a very slippery slope to me...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thronacx Inactive Member |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
My question was directed at Thronacx. He/she is trying to discredit evolution by the old "it's all a matter of how you interpret the data" argument. A silly argument, since when taken to its extreme one can never know anything, one can never be certain about anything. Criminal trials, for example, are based on the idea that one can be very reasonably certain about unseen events based on factual evidence -------------------------------------------------------------------- Ah but in trials are there not two or more interpretations of the evidence? (prosecution and Defense)Also side note (criminal trials often produce inconsistant results) ps. Just for the record Thronacx is a He.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6041 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
Yes there are two interpretations. And one is decided upon. The prosecution must prove that their interpretation is not just one of two equally valid interpretations, but is the correct one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Your "very simple example", was terribly flawed, though perhaps due to the necessities of its simplification. Unfortunately your analogy to the blind men was equally flawed (and for no apparent reason) in that it wholly missed the point that science would record the observations of each man and attempt to build a model from their experiences... not have each man argue his case.
Essentially I think your argument is founded on a belief you stated in this later post I am replying to. You appear to be arguing that evo and creationist theories are basically equal, and must be before the cases are made. In other words, science is basically like a trial between theories where each side presents its evidence to make "the best case". I believe this is wholly incorrect and (since the admin has pointed out this is topic drift) opened a new thread in "Is it Science?" called "Evo on trial: is Science like a Court of Law?". You can find my "case" there, or at the link below:http://EvC Forum: Evo on trial: is Science really like a Court of Law? -->EvC Forum: Evo on trial: is Science really like a Court of Law? ------------------holmes [This message has been edited by holmes, 12-05-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1018 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Dangerous? Yes. Many defendents are wrongly convicted.
Ridiculous? Yes, sometimes. Especially, juries who are expected to interpret forensic evidence without the benefit of an expert witness. That's generally not the case. However, even with the evidence explained by a forensics expert, juries are still left baffled. That's the problem with juries.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jantoo1 Inactive Member |
Hi all, First, let me say that I do NOT believe in evolution.. Scientists are far from perfect... I mean, can we grab a leech, I have a headache??? OH, and let`s not forget bloodletting and oh so many other scientific proofs... and ya know what the earth is NOT flat as they told the good folks way back then... AHHHH, You`re gonna fall off Columbus...PU-LEASE!!!!! I don`t believe what they SAY.. God made us and we are his creation. Monkeys are still monkeys, they didn`t change?? Hmmm...Chickens are still chickens, Sparrows are still sparrows, doves are still doves.. They have found a prehistoric fish 12 years ago, they looked exactly the same.. Now if we evolved as they would have us believe, then why does a fish that scientist TOLD us was extinct, get nabbed in a net, and it is the mirror image of what is was like 65 million years ago...Hmmmmmmm!!! I think not.. There is NO evolution. Ok so maybe we have gotten fatter and taller.... We are still the same species now that we were then.. HELLLO!!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2332 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
Care to reference the garbage you are spewing?
------------------Asgara "An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rand Al'Thor Inactive Member |
I hate to sound mean but your ignorance is profound. First off science has never and most likely never will prove anything beyond a doubt. Not even gravity is proven. You want proof go to mathematics. What science can do is use evidence and observation to explain the world around us.
Also what does the fact that some scientists though the earth was flat hundreds of years ago have to do with modern science? The difference between science and religion is science changes and evolves over time as we come to understand our world more and more. And please support your claim of the "prehistoric fish" with evidence. Just so you know your stating that there is no evolution is worthless unless you provide evidence to back it up. PS. Try reading the replies to the orginal post, you might learn something.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024