Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biased Interpretation?
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 1 of 49 (190607)
03-08-2005 11:49 AM


In looking over at the Answers in Genesis website, I came across an article by Ken Ham.
Creation: Where’s the Proof? | Answers in Genesis
Ham writes:
On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.
Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.
Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.
This is an old arguement that my creationist friends have used to show why I have "gotten it wrong". On the surface, it seems like a valid point to make.
Ken even goes so far as to say the we may not even know what our presuppositions are because they are ingrained in us from the things we were taught, or our experiences.
Admittedly, there must be some presuppositions in order to have any interpretation of data. The question is: Are we prisoners of our presuppositions?
What methodology should be used so that the influence of our presuppositions can be negated or minimized when interpreting evidence (fossils, geological samples, etc)?
edit: "date" to "data"
This message has been edited by LinearAq, 03-08-2005 11:50 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Jazzns, posted 03-08-2005 1:25 PM LinearAq has not replied
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 03-08-2005 1:44 PM LinearAq has not replied
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 03-08-2005 3:42 PM LinearAq has not replied
 Message 21 by Trixie, posted 03-09-2005 3:43 AM LinearAq has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 49 (190617)
03-08-2005 12:27 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 3 of 49 (190626)
03-08-2005 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by LinearAq
03-08-2005 11:49 AM


Where is the other interpretation of these?
Fact: Some rock has a certain ratio of parent and daughter isotope productions from radioactive decay.
Fact: The rate of decay for the parent isotope is known.
Fact: Methods exist for identifying problems with the system.
Mainstream Conclusion: Rocks can be dated by the ratio of radioactive isotopes and their decay elements.
YEC Conclusion: ???
Fact: Mutations happen that add/remove/change an animal's genes and therfore their characteristics.
Fact: Animals with characteristics more adaptive to their environment survive better and produce more offspring.
Mainstream Conclusion: The TOE
YEC Conclusion: ???

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LinearAq, posted 03-08-2005 11:49 AM LinearAq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by JonF, posted 03-08-2005 1:47 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 4 of 49 (190629)
03-08-2005 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by LinearAq
03-08-2005 11:49 AM


Well Ham is certainly a prisoner of his own presuppositions. Since he presupposes that mainstream science is wrong and he is right he cannot admit that the evidence really does support mainstream science and goes against YEC dogma.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LinearAq, posted 03-08-2005 11:49 AM LinearAq has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 5 of 49 (190630)
03-08-2005 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Jazzns
03-08-2005 1:25 PM


Re: Where is the other interpretation of these?
The old "different interpreatation" dodge is just hand-waving. If and when YECs come up with some real indiation that they can explain some significant portion of the evidence better than maninstream science and that explanation doesn't boil down to "Goddidit", they might get some atention from real scientiists. If and when YECs come up with a dfifferent interpretation that explains all the evidence as well or better than mainstream science, then they'll have something. Don't hold your breath.
Fact: Some rock has a certain ratio of parent and daughter isotope productions from radioactive decay.
Fact: The rate of decay for the parent isotope is known.
Fact: Methods exist for identifying problems with the system.
Mainstream Conclusion: Rocks can be dated by the ratio of radioactive isotopes and their decay elements.
YEC conclusion: Either the rate of decay varied in the past, or some other effect we have not taken into account makes radiometric dating invalid. Never mind the amount of heat produced by accelerated radioactive decay and the other side efects of such, or the evidence that radioactive decay did not vary in the past, or the agreement between different methods that would require a large number of unknown and perfectly synchronized mechanisms that left no trace of their actions other than the changes required to make the rocks, which we know are really young, look old.
Fact: Mutations happen that add/remove/change an animal's genes and therfore their characteristics.
Fact: Animals with characteristics more adaptive to their environment survive better and produce more offspring.
YEC conclusion: An as-yet-undetected barrier, for which there is no evidence other than the YEC's wish that it be so, exists that prevents such change from going too far. Never mind that we have no evidence of such a barrier, never mind that the fossil record contains powerful evidence that no such barrier exists, never mind the observed speciations and morphological changes; by definition they are insufficient to demonstrate a change between kinds. Especially ignore results observed in "lower" animals and organisms.
Note that the common themes in YEC "interpretations" are:
  • Postulate unknown mechanisms for which we have no evidence and assume such mechanisms are fact.
  • Never address the totality of the evidence. Especially, ignore the most powerful evidence for the mainstream position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Jazzns, posted 03-08-2005 1:25 PM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by LinearAq, posted 03-08-2005 3:02 PM JonF has replied
 Message 9 by Loudmouth, posted 03-08-2005 3:56 PM JonF has not replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 6 of 49 (190646)
03-08-2005 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by JonF
03-08-2005 1:47 PM


Re: Where is the other interpretation of these?
Certainly it appears to you that this is just "smoke and mirrors" to hide the fact that creationists can't explain scientists' interpretation of the facts. However:
For the rock dating:
1. Daughter products in the rock at formation?
2. Loss of the parent isotope?
please don't address my weak answers since that would take this off topic....they are just examples of possible creationist explainations.
Regardless, the problem at hand (presupposition imprisonment) cannot be addressed by simply putting up what you see as impregnable examples of evolutionist unbiased interpretation/gathering of evidence.
Is there a mechanism that can be used to overcome these presuppositions and is agreable to both creationists and evolutionists? I haven't thought of one yet. I hope to hear from the creationist side with any suggestions they might find appealing.
Personnally, I thought the current scientific method, with its requirement of repeatability, prediction of future observations, and falsifiability was enough to minimize personal bias. Perhaps not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by JonF, posted 03-08-2005 1:47 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 03-08-2005 3:19 PM LinearAq has not replied
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 03-08-2005 4:35 PM LinearAq has replied
 Message 11 by JonF, posted 03-08-2005 4:47 PM LinearAq has not replied
 Message 12 by Jazzns, posted 03-08-2005 5:22 PM LinearAq has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 7 of 49 (190650)
03-08-2005 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by LinearAq
03-08-2005 3:02 PM


Re: Where is the other interpretation of these?
Yes, there is a way to escape the problem. The creationists can give up their dogmatism and their "war" and actually educate thmselves. Some even do just that - and give up creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by LinearAq, posted 03-08-2005 3:02 PM LinearAq has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 8 of 49 (190656)
03-08-2005 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by LinearAq
03-08-2005 11:49 AM


The question is: Are we prisoners of our presuppositions?
Our presupposition is "the evidence is right", and yes, we're prisoner to it. Why shouldn't we be?
Their presupposition is "the Bible is right", and obviously they're prisoner to it, as well. The difference is their presupposition leads to slavery and people blowing up children, and our presupposition leads to VCR's and medicine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LinearAq, posted 03-08-2005 11:49 AM LinearAq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by sfs, posted 03-08-2005 10:07 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 49 (190660)
03-08-2005 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by JonF
03-08-2005 1:47 PM


Re: Where is the other interpretation of these?
quote:
If and when YECs come up with some real indiation that they can explain some significant portion of the evidence better than maninstream science and that explanation doesn't boil down to "Goddidit", they might get some atention from real scientiists.
A deeper look brings to mind the question of whether or not the scientific method is biased or produces bias. I certainly don't think so, but I think this is where Ham is going. Should we trust logic, positive evidence, objective evidence? According to Ham we should not. Instead, we should rely on subjective emotions, religious experience, and faith in the divinity of the Bible and God.
These are two different methods of reaching a conclusion. I will personally use the method that has produced the most results, makes accurate predictions about future finds, and explains the most data. And I think we all know what that method is. Does that make me biased? Of course, biased towards the method that works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by JonF, posted 03-08-2005 1:47 PM JonF has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 10 of 49 (190669)
03-08-2005 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by LinearAq
03-08-2005 3:02 PM


Elimination of bias
Personnally, I thought the current scientific method, with its requirement of repeatability, prediction of future observations, and falsifiability was enough to minimize personal bias. Perhaps not.
It might (only might) minimize personal bias. It does not eliminate it. However, that isn't a real problem. I have certainly seen scientists arguing for their pet idea with a great deal of bias.
What the method does do is eliminate the systematic, community wide bias. You can argue strongly for your personal view but others will not listen unless you have evidence, unless you show a logical connection from evidence to conclusion, and unless you can suggest ways to test your ideas.
Based on this, more perfect and less perfect depending on the individual, common idea of the "rules of the game" a consensus arises which, while always possible to argue with, does gradually become more and more solidly sorted out.
Is there a mechanism that can be used to overcome these presuppositions and is agreable to both creationists and evolutionists? I haven't thought of one yet. I hope to hear from the creationist side with any suggestions they might find appealing.
We have asked for this other mechanism a number of times. No one suggests even the most sketal of ideas for one.
As for your issues with rock dateing:
It might get us a bit off topic here, you are right.
They are both based on a lack of understanding of the methods used and are not problems or an explanation for the results obtained. If you are curious about that you could take it to dates and dating.
They are not an example of a different interpretation. They are an example of not knowing enough about the facts of the matter. There can not be a valid "different interpretation" until all the facts are known, included and considered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by LinearAq, posted 03-08-2005 3:02 PM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by LinearAq, posted 03-08-2005 10:26 PM NosyNed has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 11 of 49 (190671)
03-08-2005 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by LinearAq
03-08-2005 3:02 PM


Re: Where is the other interpretation of these?
For the rock dating:
1. Daughter products in the rock at formation?
2. Loss of the parent isotope?
please don't address my weak answers since that would take this off topic....they are just examples of possible creationist explainations.
Actaully, they are pretty good examples of creationist explanations that I've really seen. It's worthwhile looking at them a little as examples of the kind of thinking that YECs use.
The vast majority of creationist criticisms of radioisotope dating are of the K-Ar method, in which error due to "excess argon" at solidification is possible. They almost always ignore the facts that:
  • The Ar-Ar method and all of the various isochron methods (except for the lead-lead isochron method) produce the amount of daughter isotope at solidification as a side-effect of applying the method.
  • The U-Pb concordia-discordia methods (the most widely used methods, accounting for more than 50% of analyses) are applied only to minerals in which it is physically impossible for there to be significant daughter product (lead) at solidification.
  • It is common to date rocks by multiple mehtods and the methods almost always agree. Among other things, this demonstrates that the possible "excess argon" problem of the K-Ar method is rare.
  • Isochron methods, the Ar-Ar method, and concordia-discordia methods are essentialy certain to indicate whether the system has been an "open system" (that is, loss or gain if parent or daughter since solidification by means other than radioactive decay of the parent isotope that was persent at solidification).
  • In many cases, the Ar-Ar method and the concordia-discordia methods can produce a valid age even if parent and/or daughter isotope has been lost, and the methods clearly indicate when such an age cannot be produced.
  • The K-Ar method was used in only something like 15% of the dating studies done in the last decade or so.
So, creationist criticisms of radioisotope dating almost all ignore the vast majority of the evidence in favor of zeroing in on one small corner in which error is possible, then claiming that the possibility of some error in some circumstances means that there is always major error in all circumnstances.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by LinearAq, posted 03-08-2005 3:02 PM LinearAq has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 12 of 49 (190673)
03-08-2005 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by LinearAq
03-08-2005 3:02 PM


Re: Where is the other interpretation of these?
I think what everyone is forgetting here is that these things that LinearAq suggest are not interpretations of the facts. They are addition of other mechanisms or just plain incorrect in the straight face of the evidence.
Radioisotope contamination is directly mitigated by tests that account for this.
Accelerated decay is an additional mechanism not and interpretation. It also has zero evidence. It also has a major problem with heat.
Most if not all of the "flood models" are additional constructs rather than alternate interpretations.
A barrier to macro-evolution is an additional constraint to genetics that has no evidence. Also not an interpretation.
My question is, where are the alternate interpretations of the facts? I don't care about the hypotheticals that often are the meat of any creationist argument. If you are claiming alternate interpretation then show how a different conclusion can be drawn from the same set of info without invoking some as of yet unknown process.

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by LinearAq, posted 03-08-2005 3:02 PM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by LinearAq, posted 03-08-2005 10:16 PM Jazzns has replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 13 of 49 (190688)
03-08-2005 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by crashfrog
03-08-2005 3:42 PM


quote:
Our presupposition is "the evidence is right", and yes, we're prisoner to it. Why shouldn't we be?
Their presupposition is "the Bible is right", and obviously they're prisoner to it, as well. The difference is their presupposition leads to slavery and people blowing up children, and our presupposition leads to VCR's and medicine.
You were doing fine up until the last sentence, at which point you left the rails, headed over a cliff and blew up. The difference between the two positions is not science produces neat things and religion (or this religion) produces evil actions. The difference is that science enables us to understand the physical world in a way that religion does not; that is, it lets us predict and manipulate the physical world. For accomplishing that purpose, which is the only one science has, it is objectively superior.
Sometimes evangelical Christianity has encouraged bad behavior (slavery) and sometimes it has encouraged good behavior (the abolition of slavery). Sometimes science produces neat things (VCRs and medicine) and sometimes it produces things that aren't so neat (nuclear weapons and the ozone hole). If that's the basis for your choosing one over the other, you've got a pretty weak position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 03-08-2005 3:42 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 03-08-2005 10:30 PM sfs has replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 14 of 49 (190690)
03-08-2005 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Jazzns
03-08-2005 5:22 PM


Seeing in another...
Your reply along with Ned's and Jon's give the implication that there is no "real" problem with presupposition bias...only one perceived by one side.
Are you suggesting that since they are constrained by a bias (Bible) that they feel evolutionists SURELY MUST BE constrained by some bias also?
How can you know that you are not?
Better yet, how can you convince those that accuse you, that you aren't constrained by inordinate presuppositions?
I have met a number of creationists that seem very knowledgeable about science. Then they spout the presupposition retoric and I wonder if they are capable (and deceitful) or not capable (and honest). Then again, there is always the possibility that I could be the one who is not seeing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Jazzns, posted 03-08-2005 5:22 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by sfs, posted 03-08-2005 10:56 PM LinearAq has not replied
 Message 23 by Jazzns, posted 03-09-2005 9:37 AM LinearAq has not replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 15 of 49 (190691)
03-08-2005 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by NosyNed
03-08-2005 4:35 PM


Re: Elimination of bias
Ned writes:
We have asked for this other mechanism a number of times. No one suggests even the most sketal of ideas for one.
What do you mean by no one? No one on the creationist side or no one at all?
What criteria might be used to identify the biases that are the cause of the interpretation problems? Do the biases identified by the creationist camp have any qualities in common with each other?
Thanks for the ref to the Dates and Dating forum. However, I have been there and read a good deal. Don't understand it all but research should help out with that. I was just suggesting possible creationist responses...and I did say they were weak.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 03-08-2005 4:35 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NosyNed, posted 03-09-2005 10:04 AM LinearAq 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