Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-15-2019 4:48 PM
25 online now:
DrJones*, JonF, kjsimons, ooh-child, PaulK, vimesey (6 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: lopezeast0211, Theodoric
Post Volume:
Total: 856,801 Year: 11,837/19,786 Month: 1,618/2,641 Week: 127/708 Day: 61/66 Hour: 4/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Crop circles and intelligent design
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 63 of 149 (616185)
05-20-2011 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Peter
05-20-2011 6:10 AM


Re: cereal goblins?
Peter writes:

Is the suggestion that aliens make crop circles ruled out because it seems dumb, or because extensive investigation has ruled it out as a possibility -- by refuting something related to the claim?

Why do aliens get special consideration? Is it equally possible that crop circles are caused by fluctuations in he Matrix? Or caused by herds of immaterial celestial and otherwise undetectable cows farting in unison? Or by gods trying to communicate with us? Or by leprechauns? Fairies? Maybe crop circles are the result of pixie dust spillages?

Is there not a near infinite array of unfalsified causes that could equally be cited? Isn't it reasonable to describe any one of these baseless propositions as "very unlikely".....?

We know that humans can and do make crop circles. Until there is an evidential basis for considering some other source of crop circles I would suggest that deep skepticism towards baseless claims about aliens, pixies or any other such source is more than justified.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Peter, posted 05-20-2011 6:10 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Peter, posted 05-23-2011 5:04 AM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 64 of 149 (616186)
05-20-2011 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Peter
05-20-2011 7:25 AM


Re: cereal goblins?
Peter writes:

You ... you mean magic leprechauns are NOT responsible for gravity ?!?

Well they haven't been falsified as the cause............

So where does that leave the 'magic leprechauns cause gravitational effects' theory?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Peter, posted 05-20-2011 7:25 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Peter, posted 05-23-2011 4:43 AM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 77 of 149 (616592)
05-23-2011 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Peter
05-23-2011 5:04 AM


Re: cereal goblins?
P writes:

But this is actually hitting the guts of my continued posting!

I am glad you think so.

Peter writes:

How can we rule out something without evidence that refutes it?

The alien construction of crop circles is only being ruled out in the same sense that fluctuations in the matrix, cereal goblins or pixie dust spillages are being ruled out as potential causes of crop circles. All such notions are evidentially baseless propositions and in the face of a highly evidenced alternative (namely human construction) all can be dismissed as relatively unlikely.

P writes:

We can state that it's not believable ... but that isn't a scientific position.

Its not believable because all of the evidence suggests a contrary cause of crop circles and none of the evidence suggests alien construction.

Peter writes:

Stephen Hawkin once said 'I would never say that time travel was impossible.

Nobody is saying that alien constructed crop circles are impossible. Has anyone here other than you used the word impossible?

P writes:

We don't need an evidential reason for considering some other cause .... the potential causes (hypotheses) are simply ideas based upon thoughts about an observation.

Do you think plucking evidentially baseless but unfalsified notions out of ones arse is a reliable method of investigation? Or is it functionally equivalent to randomly guessing in terms of reliability of conclusion?

P writes:

They have to be worked into a form that meets the criteria of scientific investigation (which is NOT the case with Alien Crop Circles so far as I know) and then figure out detailed observations that would be contrary to that hypothesis .... i.e. try to disproove it.

If you seriously think that science should give any weight to evidentially baseless and quite evidently culturally invoked propositions just because they are unfalsified (or even unflasifiable) you have a very skewed view of science.

P writes:

That's not what has happened in regard to crop circles ... no investigation has ever really been done because the opinion is automatically 'human pranksters'

Whenever crop circles have been investigated humans have been found to be the cause of crop circles. No investigation has ever provided any reason to conclude "pixie dust spillage" or "matrix fluctuation" or "cereal goblin" or "alien construction" or "communication from god" or........(the list of baseless but conceivable causes continues as far as human imagination will stretch)

Why should we give alien construction of crop circles any more credence or consideration than any of these other baselessly derived notions of crop circle cause?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Peter, posted 05-23-2011 5:04 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Peter, posted 05-25-2011 6:07 AM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 81 of 149 (616944)
05-25-2011 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Peter
05-25-2011 6:07 AM


Re: cereal goblins?
This is all sounding depressingly familiar......

The only known source of crop circles is human construction. Scientific inductive reasoning thus leads to the tentative and falsifiable theory that ALL crop circles are constructed by humans. This theory can be falsified by presenting concrete evidence of ANY other source of crop circles which is not human in origin. This theory predicts that where the source of any specific crop circle becomes known, human construction will be found to be the cause. This prediction has been borne out in all known cases. This theory is not weakened by assertions that unevidenced causes of crop circles (such as cereal goblins or alien beings) might exist anymore than evolutionary theory is weakened by baseless alternatives such as Last Thursdayism for example.

Peter writes:

What people are saying is that based upon some very loose evidence that crop circles can be made by people, that they all are.

Does the phrase 'positive evidence' mean anything to you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Peter, posted 05-25-2011 6:07 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Peter, posted 05-26-2011 2:36 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 87 of 149 (617229)
05-26-2011 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Peter
05-26-2011 2:36 PM


Re: cereal goblins?
Peter writes:

The phrase 'positive evidence' does mean something to me ... but making rash inferences from a very weak item of any kind of evidence is unwise.

Can you explain specifically what it is that is "weak" about the positive evidence that crop circles are constructed by humans?

Peter writes:

It's exactly what ID does.

Really? Can you show me where ID has any evidential basis for positive claims rather than arguments along the lines of "evolution could NOT have happened because..."

Peter writes:

That's what this thread was about -- I think.

So how do you respond to the notion that ANY unfalsified idea is worthy of the same credence and consideration you are giving to alien constucted crop circles? Are undetectable celestial cows farting in unison worthy of more or less or equal credence and consideration? On what factors do you base your answer?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Peter, posted 05-26-2011 2:36 PM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Peter, posted 06-09-2011 11:20 AM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 107 of 149 (620439)
06-16-2011 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Peter
06-09-2011 11:20 AM


ALL Conceivable Causes
Peter writes:

Weak 'positive' evidence for Human ONLY formed crop circles:

The only known source of crop circles is human construction. Scientific inductive reasoning thus leads to the tentative and falsifiable theory that ALL crop circles are constructed by humans. This theory can be falsified by presenting concrete evidence of ANY other source of crop circles which is not human in origin. This theory predicts that where the source of any specific crop circle becomes known, human construction will be found to be the cause. This prediction has been borne out in all known cases. This theory is not weakened by assertions that unevidenced causes of crop circles (such as cereal goblins or alien beings) might exist anymore than evolutionary theory is weakened by baseless alternatives such as Last Thursdayism for example.

Peter writes:

How is the above claim any different to "evolution could NOT have happened because..." ?

Apart from anything else there is masses of positive evidence that evolution did occur. Provide some positive evidence of alien constructed crop circles and you can then maybe start making such comparisons.

Peter writes:

If there is no evidence at all (one way or another) then I give everything equal scientific validity regardless of my personal opinion as to the liklihood.

In a vacuum of all evidence I would give all possibilities equal weighting too. But there is no such thing as a vacuum of all evidence. All human claims are made in the highly evidenced context of human psychology, history and culture.

Peter writes:

To me, science is not about opinion or credibility it's about evidential support for a stated potential explanation.

Yes - Supporting evidence such as the evidence that humans can and do make crop circles.

Peter writes:

By evidential support I mean accumulated failure to refute.

Our ability to conceive of unfalsified possible causes of crop circles (or indeed anything else) is limited only by our imagination. If faced with a crop circle of unknown origin you think science should give equal weighting to the human construction hypothesis, the farting celestial cow hypothesis, the alien construction hypothesis, the fluctuations in the matrix hypothesis, the underground morphic field hypothesis, the cereal goblin hypothesis etc. etc. etc. etc. - Then you obviously don't understand how scientific inductive reasoning made on the basis of positive evidence works.

Peter writes:

If we accept 'unlikihood' as evidence against one thing, we must accept it across the board.

Nobody is citing unlikelihood as evidence. We are saying that any conclusion devoid of supporting evidence is unlikely to be correct.

Peter writes:

Since there are many areas (ID being one) where we reject 'unlikihood' as sufficient, we cannot accept it anywhere else either without being hypocrytical.

You are conflating IDist claims of impossibility that fly in the face of the evidence with the argument being made here that completely unevidenced claims are unlikely to be correct. The fact that the word "unlikely" features in both does not make them the same.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Peter, posted 06-09-2011 11:20 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Peter, posted 06-21-2011 12:11 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 122 of 149 (621113)
06-23-2011 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Peter
06-21-2011 12:11 PM


Re: ALL Conceivable Causes
Peter writes:

If one starts from a conclusion, then only looks for support of that conclusion (i.e. positive evidence) one is not being scientific.

If one starts from a basis of positive evidence and then forms a tentative falsifiable conclusion which also makes verified predictions - Then we can call that a scientific conclusion.

As a point of comparison could you tell me whether you think it is justifiable to conclude evolution over Last Thursdayism on the basis of positive evidence?

Peter writes:

What is the 'falsifiability' of human created crop-circles?

Any evidence of a singular non-human made crop circles is enough to falsify the theory that ALL crop circles are human made.

Peter writes:

......making human-crop-circles-are-the-only-ones unfalsifiable in itself.

If I showed you a herd of cows making a crop circle are you saying that the "human-crop-circles-are-the-only-ones" theory would not be falsified?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Peter, posted 06-21-2011 12:11 PM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Peter, posted 07-08-2011 9:39 AM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 127 of 149 (623162)
07-08-2011 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Peter
07-08-2011 9:39 AM


Re: ALL Conceivable Causes
Peter writes:

Straggler writes:

As a point of comparison could you tell me whether you think it is justifiable to conclude evolution over Last Thursdayism on the basis of positive evidence?

No it's not. The support for evolution is a lack of negative evidence/refutation.

But there is equally a lack of negative evidence/refutation of Last Thursdayism. So according to your line of reasoning the two proposals are equally valid aren't they? If not why not? Be specific.

Peter writes:

Straggler writes:

If I showed you a herd of cows making a crop circle are you saying that the "human-crop-circles-are-the-only-ones" theory would not be falsified?

OK ... that's true.

If you agree that any demonstrable non-human source of crop circles (whether cows or anything else) falsifies the theory I don't see how you can possibly continue to claim that the theory is unfalsifiable?

Edited by Straggler, : Spelling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Peter, posted 07-08-2011 9:39 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Peter, posted 06-28-2013 10:28 AM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 134 of 149 (701979)
06-28-2013 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Peter
06-28-2013 10:28 AM


Re: ALL Conceivable Causes
Peter writes:

Without knowing the claims of last thursdayism I cannot comment on it's potential.

See Last Thursdayism

Peter writes:

OK ... I actually agree that 'all crop circles are human made' is a falsifiable proposition.

Good. Now can you tell us how it would be falsified?

Peter writes:

However, it is an opinion rather than a theory ... since it, itself, is not based upon anything other than a failure to believe that crop circles could be formed apart from by humans.

No. It's based only the only known source of crop circles. Hence it is both falsifiable and a high confidence theory.

If you know of a confirmed source for crop circles other than humans now is the time to let us know......?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Peter, posted 06-28-2013 10:28 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Peter, posted 07-01-2013 5:51 AM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 144 of 149 (702097)
07-01-2013 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Peter
07-01-2013 5:51 AM


Re: ALL Conceivable Causes
Straggler writes:

As a point of comparison could you tell me whether you think it is justifiable to conclude evolution over Last Thursdayism on the basis of positive evidence?

Peter writes:

No it's not. The support for evolution is a lack of negative evidence/refutation.

Straggler writes:

But there is equally a lack of negative evidence/refutation of Last Thursdayism. So according to your line of reasoning the two proposals are equally valid aren't they? If not why not? Be specific.

Peter writes:

Last Thursdayism: Cannot be refuted ... unless we can find conclusive evidence that there is no godly person ... which I think we can't.

So there is a "lack of negative evidence/refutation" for both Last Thursdayism and evolution. How do you suggest we establish which of the two is more likely to be correct?

Peter writes:

Falsifying 'All CC's are created by H's': Find features in unknown-origin CC's that diverge from those of known-origin CC's.

Such as?

Peter writes:

Which there appear to be several of -- admittedly according to people who already subscribe to a 'something else is doing it' opinion.

According to people wedded to the notion that aliens are creating crop circles some crop circles are created by aliens. It appears the circles in crops are not the only ones on display.....

Peter writes:

Only known source: It's based upon the ability of H's to replicate CC's. That's not the same thing at all.

The only known source is the only known source. If you know of an established source of crop circles that is non-human now is the time to tell us......?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Peter, posted 07-01-2013 5:51 AM Peter has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019