Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Evolutionist Accuses Others of Lying
According to evolutionist Jeffrey Martz “creationism is based on lies and misrepresentations of science.” But why isn’t Martz concerned about the “lies and misrepresentations” of evolutionists? Evolutionists say their idea is a scientific fact, on par with gravity and the round shape of the earth. Why does Martz not work to correct that tall tale? Look in any evolution textbook and you can see many more such misrepresentations. Yet evolutionists such as Martz just look the other way.
It never fails. Whenever Cornelius is on a tight schedule to produce more dumb IDC propaganda for the DI, he always falls back on his standard lie and misrepresentation: equivocating between the observed fact of evolution and the theory that explains the observed fact.
ReplyDeleteAnother day, another liar for Jesus plying his trade. Ho hum.
That "liar for Jesus" trick is tired and stinks of desperation. To use such a tactic is arguing from a position of strength, innit? Tell me, how do YOU know his thoughts and intentions?
ReplyDeleteI bet you're furious that "Question Evolution Day" is coming up on Darwin's birthday, where people are tired of evolutionist lies, and show the real facts about evolution. More so than some of us are doing all along.
Cornelius, aside from the Thorny helping to prove your point, I have gone on about the same thing. The true spirit of scientific inquiry will not hide or dodge unpleasant facts or interpretations of facts. So many are simply willing to call a disbeliever in fundie evolutionist propaganda a "liar", as if this lie in itself negates the truth of what the anti-evolutionist is saying.
Desperate, and pitiful.
Storm -
DeleteI honestly had no idea what Question Evolution Day was. I had to Google it. And all I found was a Facebook group.
As for the 'true spirit of scientific inquiry', I will ask you the same question I ask most evolution-deniers which invariably sends them running for cover. Perhaps you will be the first to actually step up to the mark...?
Do you accept that science absolutely must presuppose naturalism? A mere yes or no will suffice.
Stormbringer
DeleteThat "liar for Jesus" trick is tired and stinks of desperation. To use such a tactic is arguing from a position of strength, innit? Tell me, how do YOU know his thoughts and intentions?
In this case the description is 100% accurate. CH has been corrected on this particular lie probably 20 times in the last two years but still keeps telling it. We know his thoughts and intentions from the mission statement he swore to at Biola, from his work with the Discovery Institute, and from his previous blog entries here.
I bet you're furious that "Question Evolution Day" is coming up on Darwin's birthday, where people are tired of evolutionist lies, and show the real facts about evolution. More so than some of us are doing all along.
Yeah, the science community is just shaking in its boots. :D
You willing to share some of those "real facts" with us and defend your claims? Or are you going to be just another fart-n-dart one post wonder?
Cornelius, aside from the Thorny helping to prove your point, I have gone on about the same thing. The true spirit of scientific inquiry will not hide or dodge unpleasant facts or interpretations of facts.
Then why do Creationists go out of their way to lie about and dodge the ones they can't explain?
So many are simply willing to call a disbeliever in fundie evolutionist propaganda a "liar", as if this lie in itself negates the truth of what the anti-evolutionist is saying.
Creationists aren't called liars because of their beliefs. They're called liars when they get caught lying to push those beliefs, as CH as done here.
Desperate, and pitiful.
You guys certainly are.
Stormbringer: I bet you're furious that "Question Evolution Day" is coming up on Darwin's birthday, where people are tired of evolutionist lies, and show the real facts about evolution. More so than some of us are doing all along.
DeleteI'm having difficulty following your line of logic here. However, I do not share a number of presuppositions that you apparently hold, so this comes as no surprise.
For example, you should continually question everything because everything contains inaccuracies to some degree. Specifically, we create knowledge by systematically creating explanations based on conjecture and discarding errors from these explanations. This process is infinite. That is, we will aways be at the beginning of this process, just as one's room number in an infinite hotel would always be at the beginning of the sequence of infinite room numbers.
This is in contrast to a belief that there are "true" answers that are completely error free and can never become more accurate - which, by the way, is an assumption which acts in opposition to our ability to correct errors.
In other words, while you might not realize it, your presuppositions are in direct opposition to the creation of knowledge.
In this light, it's not clear what questioning evolution has to do with being "tired of evolutionist lies". It's a non-sequitur, as far as I'm concerned.
Nor is it clear how it would even possible to have completely error free explanations in the first place.
Let me guess, divine revelation? But this presupposes that all knowledge has always existed, otherwise the source of divine revelation would have gaps in it's knowledge.
The assumption that knowledge has always existed isn't evident or an assumption made by science. However, it is an assumption held by the majority of theists.
Is this merely a coincidence?
Stormbringer: The true spirit of scientific inquiry will not hide or dodge unpleasant facts or interpretations of facts.
DeleteHow can the presuppositions that knowledge has always existed be in "The true spirit of scientific inquiry"?
Or do you deny assuming this is the case?
LOL. I question evolution every day in my work. Don't need a special day for it.
DeleteI have a feeling what you guys really mean is 'deny evolution day'.
Ritchie
DeleteFeb 2, 2012 05:03 AM
Do you accept that science absolutely must presuppose naturalism? A mere yes or no will suffice.
Yes but...
then fact are only reproducible observtions. Explanations of that facts are only theories to be confirmed.
Blas: Do you accept that science absolutely must presuppose naturalism? A mere yes or no will suffice.
DeleteThe idea that the universe consists of natural things, which are explainable and comprehensible, and supernatural things, which are unexplainable and incomprehensible, seems at odds with each other. Specifically, how could you know that supernatural things do not effect natural things in an unexplainable and incomprehensible way since you claim they are, well, unexplainable and incomprehensible?
In other words, as soon as you admit anything that is supposedly unexplainable and incomprehensible you're conceding it could effect everything else in some unexplainable and incomprehensible way. Otherwise, it wouldn't be unexplainable and incomprehensible. Right?
Or to put it another way, it's unclear how you can draw a line that divides something that supposedly unexplainable and incomprehensible from everything else.
So, before we even discuss the topic of science, it seems we a significant problem with labeling anything supernatural or natural, given the supposed nature of supernatural things.
Or perhaps I'm putting words in your mouth. Are supernatural things comprehensible and explainable?
Scott,
Delete"Stormbringer: The true spirit of scientific inquiry will not hide or dodge unpleasant facts or interpretations of facts."
What a noble sentiment. Too bad evolution is littered with fraud, bad assumptions, just-so stories, cherry-picking, discarding information that does not fit presuppositions — that this crap is put in textbooks to edjamakate.
"How can the presuppositions that knowledge has always existed be in "The true spirit of scientific inquiry"?
"Or do you deny assuming this is the case?"
Can you show me where I made such a remark? Next time you serve up red herring, I prefer it smoked, with lemon sauce.
Ritchie disingenuously stated, "I had to Google it [Question Evolution Day]. And all I found was a Facebook group."
DeleteThat would have been a start. But Google, Yahoo and Bing (the names of my attorneys, by the way) all give more results than just the Facebook group.
Scott: "Or do you deny assuming this is the case?"
DeleteStormbringer: Can you show me where I made such a remark?
What's with the evasion? Do you only have positions on subjects you've previously remarked on? It's really a simply question, to which your answer which isn't dependent on whether you've remarked on it in the past.
Imagine the following…
You: "Or do you deny that [you like ice-cream]?
Me: "Can you show me where I make such a remark?"
Regardless if I've made a remark about liking or disliking ice-cream previously, this in no way prevents me from affirming or denying that I like ice-cream.
Since that wasn't a denial, should I take that as a "No?" If so, then how do you explain how the the knowledge of how to build the biosphere *was* created?
Or perhaps you do not quite understand the implications of creationism.
To rephrase, do you think that the designer "just was", complete with all of the knowledge of how to build the biosphere, already present? If so, then you think the knowledge has always existed.
CH -
ReplyDeleteBut why isn’t Martz concerned about the “lies and misrepresentations” of evolutionists?
Because there aren't any. Evolution IS a scientific fact on par with gravity and the round shape fo the Earth. Ta-dah.
stormbringer,
ReplyDeleteDo you have a scientifically testable alternative to the ToE that is backed up by evidence?
"Do you have a scientifically testable alternative to the ToE that is backed up by evidence?"
DeleteDo you have a scientifically testable scientific theory at all? Certainly not ToE!
stormbringer, Cornelius (or is it "George"), and all the other IDCs,
ReplyDeleteThe 'liar for Darwin' accusation is tired and stinks of desperation. To use such a tactic is arguing from a position of no strength. Desperate and pitiful.
"the truth of what the anti-evolutionist is saying"
Exactly what "truth" are you referring to?
And what are "the real facts about evolution"?
Why isn’t Concerned concerned about the “lies and misrepresentations” of creationists?
ReplyDelete...
We could do this all day.
"But why isn’t Martz concerned about the “lies and misrepresentations” of evolutionists?"
ReplyDeleteEven I know the answer.
It's like Ritchie says, "There aren't any...."
For example, the drawings of Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel (February 16, 1834 – August 9, 1919) which are STILL published in textbooks is NOT a lie! And so on and so forth....
It's like all the "scientific evidence" that supports evolutionism: if it doesn't support evolutionism, a) it isn't scientific and b) it isn't evidence. Thus it has been defined and thus it is. Just as Eugenie Scott for heaven's sake, er.. whatever.
RR -
Deletethe drawings of Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel (February 16, 1834 – August 9, 1919) which are STILL published in textbooks is NOT a lie!
Errr, no, no-one uses them AS EVIDENCE for evolution. Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" hypothesis has indeed been falsified. But it was a hypothesis drawn up to explain real evidence. And every reputable science textbook clearly explains all this. No lies there.
It's like all the "scientific evidence" that supports evolutionism: if it doesn't support evolutionism, a) it isn't scientific and b) it isn't evidence.
Again, completely wrong. Evidence would not automatically be dismissed as 'not scientific' or 'not evidence' just because it didn't support evolution. But it would be dismissed as such if it wasn't scientific and wasn't evidence.
A bit like 'A magic sky man did it with magic' is not scientific. A bit like 'It's a mystery, therefore Goddidit' is not evidence.
All the evidence we have which actually IS scientific and IS evidence (and we have a lot of that), supports evolution.
I had someone admit that Haeckel's drawings are faked, but claim they're true anyway. *Facepalm*
DeleteCH: According to evolutionist Jeffrey Martz “creationism is based on lies and misrepresentations of science.”
ReplyDeleteThis is a typical out of context quote. From the actual post...
When we talk about politicians or religious leaders "losing credibility", the loss does not immediately occur when these leaders lie, cheat, or get blown in public parks. It occurs when people find out about it. Since most of the general public does not know that creationism is based on lies and misrepresentations of science in general and geology, paleontology, and biology in particular, creationism has credibility with the general public.
I've pointed out a significant number of cases where, assuming he's a reasonable competent scientist, Cornelius has knowingly posted falsehoods and / or misrepresented science.
CH: But why isn’t Martz concerned about the “lies and misrepresentations” of evolutionists?
Note that Cornelius doesn't actually deny this is the case, but attempts to deflect the issue by pointing to the same arguments which depend on known falsehoods and / or misrepresentations of science in general and geology, paleontology, and biology. Examples?
Cornelius' continued reductionists claims that "natural selection doesn't help". Cornelius' refusal to disclose his position on important aspects of science, such as what sort of empiricist he is, the particular means by which he justifies conclusions, etc.
In other words, he portrays himself as being "neutral" on the issue, while smuggling in theistic assumptions, such as the presupposition that knowledge has always existed, rather than being created, that we all subscribe to justificationism, etc. He then says we're misrepresenting science, as if we all agree on his assumptions.
Again, assuming he's a reasonable competent scientist, Cornelius would know quite well the impact these assumptions would have on his claims and that they are neither evident via observations or universally held in the scientific community.
For example, in his post More Evidence of Adaptive Mutations: Adaptation by Directed Modification Rather Than Selection, Lamarck N, Darwin 0, Cornelius either reveals his ignorance of both Darwin and Lamarck, or disingenuously misrepresents them - despite having previously pointed the underlying explanation behind both of them.
ReplyDeleteLamarck assumes the spontaneous creation of simple organisms, along with some sort of vague universal law that contains the knowledge of how to cause organisms to always become more complex. On the other hand, Darwin's underlying explanation is that the knowledge of how to build adaptations was created via a form of conjecture and refutation.
Before a cell can adapt to conditions it must contain the knowledge of when and how to do so. This ability is itself an adaptation, which requires knowledge. The question is, what is the origin of this knowledge? Did this knowledge appear spontaneously or had always existed, or was it created over time via a form or conjecture and refutation? This is the difference between Darwin and Lamarck.
Of course, this doesn't suit Cornelius' agenda, so he misrepresents the issue in hope that his target audience will buy in hook line and sinker. And since he knows his target audience consists of justificationists, Cornelius doesn't have to explicitly disclose his justificationism, in an attempt to shield it from criticism.
Furthermore, he's essentially dodged nearly every question I've ask specifically designed to clarify his position on these issues - as if he thinks by ignoring the issue will somehow maintain the illusion that he's neutral. However, his lack of a response is irrelevant. All we have to do is point his presuppositions are not universally held, coincide with fundamental theistic dogma and are not evident from observations alone. As such, his position is not neutral.
In other words, "evolutionists" only "misrepresent" Cornelius' preferred definition of science, which he conveniently refuses to explicitly disclose. Nor does he present arguments as to why his definition is to be preferred. Rather, he just presumes this is the case and that it's universally excepted.
Evolutionists have to lie about other theories to distract from the fact their own 'theory' is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
ReplyDeleteNational Velour
ReplyDeleteEvolutionists have to lie about other theories to distract from the fact their own 'theory' is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Feel free to provide your alternate 'theory' for the history of life on Earth that explains the empirical data in a more detailed and consilient manner, has better predictive power, and is better supported with positive evidence.
What's stopping you?
"Feel free to provide your alternate 'theory' for the history of life on Earth that explains the empirical data in a more detailed and consilient manner, has better predictive power, and is better supported with positive evidence."
DeleteWell, that rules out evolution.
If one wishes to discredit anything then ones accusations must be true or one discredits oneself.
ReplyDeleteThis cat says creationism is lies and bad guys generally.
On behalf of my long observation of creationism I plead NOT GUILTY.
Saying people lie is a big accusation.
Do people lie? YES.
However in origin issues most people on all sides act out of integrity.
They are not lying.
They are wrong, dumb, careless, sloppy, missing the point, passionate.
BUT not liars.
Its a poor reflection on the accuser !
Its just not true that creationists lie.
YEC and ID often are sincere Christians and attack evolution with the expectation of persuading people on the merits.
Evolutionists get beat or frustrated because they don't have a good case or make a good case.
In fact I recently rewatched a hour show by Mr Coyne who wrote a book about evolution being true.
The show demonstrated the intellectual and general failings of evolutionist defenders.
I recommend it to everyone to see the problems of defending evolutionary biology.
Robert Byers: However in origin issues most people on all sides act out of integrity. They are not lying. They are wrong, dumb, careless, sloppy, missing the point, passionate. BUT not liars.
DeleteI wrote: Again, assuming he's a [reasonably] competent scientist, Cornelius would know quite well the impact these assumptions would have on his claims and that they are neither evident via observations or universally held in the scientific community.
Are you suggesting that Cornelius isn't a competent scientist? Is he "dumb" in that he does not know his presuppositions are not universally held? Is he unaware that empiricism outdated and that, even within empiricism itself, there are a number variations that would have an impact on his arguments?
While I cannot read his mind, these are well known issues in the field of science. Yet Cornelius argues as if they are complexly uncontroversial without disclosing this assumption.
I didn't mean the boss here but what I see in the evolutionist camp and sometimes amongst creationists.
DeleteMr Hunter repeats a common accusation that evolutionists present their conclusions as settled fact when they they smell or sense they are in fact just reasonable ideas that must be true as they reject a creator and have no other ideas.
I presume Most folks are acting out of intellectual and moral integrity but not all.
Passion and desperation happens in human nature.
Does the evolutionist deliberately evade the poverty of proof for claims said to be proved.
Pschology or just plain not that sharp is a major factor in mankind.
Successful creationist thinkers bump into the most passionate evolutionists and so demographics are involved.
Robert Byers: I didn't mean the boss here but what I see in the evolutionist camp and sometimes amongst creationists.
DeleteRobert,
Of course "didn't mean the boss here". This is my point.
As a layman, you're part of Cornelius' target audience. You're not aware of the presuppositions he's making in regards to the specific version of empiricism he holds, justificationism, etc. As such, you simply assume they are universally held and accept his claims that evolutionists are lying, etc.
However, Cornelius isn't a layman. He should know better. And if he does not, then he's' not competent. So, by failing to disclose these assumptions he is knowingly presenting falsehoods.
The big basic lie about evolution is that random mutations create new information. This is easily tested, and fails the test.
ReplyDeleteDarwin wrote that without variations, natural selection has nothing to work with. Phenotypic variations can only result from changes in the genotype. These are either cyclical (shuffling alleles, no new information) or due to random mutations. We can study random mutations empirically, they do not create new information, as intelligent design hypothesis predicts. where mutations confer benefits, as in sickle cell disease, they are limited, situational, and as Mike Behe says, depend on broken and blunted genes.
No amount of sneering or personal abuse of Darwin critics can alter these biological facts.
Elwin Daniels: The big basic lie about evolution is that random mutations create new information. This is easily tested, and fails the test.
DeleteWhy don't you start out by explaining how knowledge is created, then show how evolution isn't an example of it.
It's highly unlikely Elwin will be coming back. I posted some question for him on his blog a few months back after DeNews at UD linked to it. Elwin squirmed and avoided and wouldn't answer any questions, except to post multiple paragraphs telling me how he had better things to do and was too busy to provide answers.
DeleteElwin is your basic scientifically clueless IDC proselytizer, nothing more.
Elwin Daniels
ReplyDeleteThe big basic lie about evolution is that random mutations create new information.
Please define 'information' as it pertains to evolutionary biology. Please give your objective method for measuring the information content of a genome. Please explain how you would recognize and identify 'new' information if you saw it.
This is easily tested, and fails the test.
Please present this test and describe the methodology, as well as the documented results.
Darwin wrote that without variations, natural selection has nothing to work with. Phenotypic variations can only result from changes in the genotype. These are either cyclical (shuffling alleles, no new information) or due to random mutations. We can study random mutations empirically, they do not create new information, as intelligent design hypothesis predicts. where mutations confer benefits, as in sickle cell disease, they are limited, situational, and as Mike Behe says, depend on broken and blunted genes.
You forgot a very important case: gene duplication with subsequent mutations to the duplicated segment. The first half of the duplicated segment still performs the original function while the duplicated half is free to mutate and explore the surrounding search space. That is one of the most common and well understood mechanisms for producing genetic variation in all of biology.
Gene duplication as an evolutionary event
Start with a genome segment
AGTAGT.
Duplicate it and you get
AGTAGTAGTAGT
Now one half is free to mutate to
AGTAGTAGTACC
Please explain why the new sequence with its subsequent new functionality doesn't count as new information.
No amount of sneering or personal abuse of Darwin critics can alter these biological facts.
No amount of ignorance based assertions will alter biological facts either. You really should read up on the topic before embarrassing yourself further. Your ignorance is curable, but first you have to want to learn.
According to this:
Deletehttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959440X09001249
it seems that things are not so simple. Mutations can make proteins unstable. It looks like that puts constraints on evolution of proteins.
AGTAGTAGTAGT
ReplyDeleteAGTAGTAGTACC
Just chaos, my friend.
Eugen
DeleteAGTAGTAGTAGT
AGTAGTAGTACC
Just chaos, my friend.
If so then it's chaos that contains new information my friend.
Which of these sequences has more information?
1) AGTAGT
2) AGTAGTAGTACC
Elwin Daniels
ReplyDeleteThe big basic lie about evolution is that random mutations create new information. This is easily tested, and fails the test.
I second Thorton's point. You need to define information first. I'll give you a hint, Shannon, Chaitin, and Kolmogorov cannot help you. Shannon is concerned with information transmission and the other two's theories specify that the more random a bit sequence the more information there is. So I await your argument based on specified complexity or functional information. Hopefully you have something new. More importantly, please stand by your arguments and don't just bail or make further assertions when these have been challenged.
I'd also like to point out to the Thorton detractors that Thorton does make reasoned arguments to newcomers with whom he has no history. I've seen it several times. He saves his venom for those evasive posters that would rather abandon or move on to further assertions without defending challenges to previous assertions; stubbornly say the same thing over and over again and ignore the content of challenges; or constantly appeal to authority.
T Cook
DeleteI'd also like to point out to the Thorton detractors that Thorton does make reasoned arguments to newcomers with whom he has no history. I've seen it several times. He saves his venom for those evasive posters that would rather abandon or move on to further assertions without defending challenges to previous assertions; stubbornly say the same thing over and over again and ignore the content of challenges; or constantly appeal to authority.
Pretty much. I always give new posters the benefit of the doubt and assume they're interested in honest discussion. It's only after they start in with the evasions, and falsehoods, and innuendos about how all scientists are deliberate frauds that I get my dander up.
I've made my position clear a thousand times: I don't care one fig what if any God(s) anyone personally believes in. But when someone starts with the lies and dishonesty in attacking the sciences they don't understand to push that religion the gloves come off.
True enough, as well as reasoned, factual arguments
DeleteYes, he often does. And others have been honest in their inquiries as well.
DeleteOf course,but being honest doesn't mean you are factual. It just makes you better person.
DeleteWhich leads to matters of intent and perception.
DeleteInteresting symbology you've posed. In this model, do you find (in a general sense) that we tend to pursue fact over honesty?
Is honesty the legendary Truth?
DeleteThat would depend upon one's perception of truth.
DeleteWe can study random mutations empirically, they do not create new information, as intelligent design hypothesis predicts.
ReplyDeleteHow exactly is that a prediction of Intelligent Design?
Actually do you even know what constitutes a "prediction" in science? By your claim above I'm guessing not.
It's the joint action of random mutation and natural selection that creates information. If a random mutation causes a butterfly to have better camouflaged than its conspecifics, and selection takes the mutation to fixation, then the genome contains new information about the butterfly's environment.
ReplyDeleteIf camouflage genes duplicate and diverge such that different versions of the original gene cause different camouflage patterns depending on, say, the time of the year (wet season vs. dry season with different vegetation), then the genes tell us something about the environments encountered by the butterfly. The genes contain information about the environment.
This can be formulated in terms of information theoretical concepts. The genes reduce uncertainty (Shannon information) about the environments encountered by the butterfly, leading to a higher mutual information between genes and environment.
Looks like I was wrong above when I said, "Shannon is concerned with information transmission." From the link above "Shannon's source coding theorem says (roughly) that a lossless compression scheme cannot compress messages, on average, to have more than one bit of entropy per bit of message." To paraphrase, the information from a fair coin toss is the most information possible per bit. This is precisely because of the 50/50 randomness. So, like the other two people I invoked above's theories, the more random a bit sequence the more information there is.
DeleteAgain, this shows Elwin Daniels' "The big basic lie about evolution is that random mutations create new information. This is easily tested, and fails the test." wrong under Shannon information as well.
Elwin, Eugen,
ReplyDeleteI just changed my computer login password to a string of 12 "H"s and "T"s generated from 12 coin tosses. Since this was randomly generated, there is zero information and you should have no problem guessing my password.
How do you remember it?
DeleteHenry Thoreau had twenty two tobacco hits tightly tucked tween two hearthstones.
ReplyDeletePlease don't hack me.
Impressive.
Deletevelikovsky
ReplyDelete"How do you remember it?"
LOL
-----
T.Cook
Thorton gives new IDCers a few free shots and then unleashes the force.
Thorton
1-What biological mechanism is selecting new information from chaos?
2- What protects cell’s core mechanisms from random variation?
3- Is only duplicated gene being affected by random changes and not the active one?
4-What is the physical-chemical barrier between active and duplicate gene?
Mon ami.
Blood types
DeleteEugen
DeleteThorton
1-What biological mechanism is selecting new information from chaos?
Define information as it refers to biological entities. If you mean what filters for the new functions provided by the changes then it's good old fashioned natural selection.
2- What protects cell’s core mechanisms from random variation?
What do you consider to be a cell's 'core mechanisms'? Generally speaking nothing 'protects' them. They're subject to having their function be altered by mutation and undergo selection pressure like everything else.
3- Is only duplicated gene being affected by random changes and not the active one?
Sometimes neither are, sometimes both are. But 50% of the time you'll have just one, and one is all it takes to create a new variation for selection to act on.
4-What is the physical-chemical barrier between active and duplicate gene?
I don't know of one. What barrier would that be?
Mon ami.
OK, I draw the line at the Frenchy stuff. :)
T.Cook
ReplyDeleteTony Cook, I can trust your links will not be shocking unlike somebody else's here.
You Italians can be trusted except to pilot the cruise ship.
lulz. How long have you been waiting for some pretext to pull that stinker of a joke out? Where'd you get Tony from? Or is it Cook that sounds Italian to you?
DeleteEugen
DeleteYou Italians can be trusted except to pilot the cruise ship.
There you go, exploiting poor Italian cruise ship captains just to make your cheap rhetorical points. You're in trouble now - just wait until Smith hears about this!
Yes. You know how Smith is, constantly condemning others for not following his point of view. That's when the (insert favorite sports metaphor for how serious this blog is about to get)
DeleteRitchie said:
ReplyDeleteI ask most evolution-deniers which invariably sends them running for cover. Perhaps you will be the first to actually step up to the mark...?
Do you accept that science absolutely must presuppose naturalism? A mere yes or no will suffice.
Didn't you just ask me this exact question a few threads ago? What's all this about him being the first to answer it?
BTW, I'd be curious in knowing what you thought of Stephen Hawkin's answer to that question.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deletewgbutler -
DeleteDidn't you just ask me this exact question a few threads ago? What's all this about him being the first to answer it?
I did indeed ask it of you, and you did not answer it. You dodged. You told me I would have to agree to certain premises before you would even attempt an answer.
I would gladly take one from you now if you'd care to share it?
BTW, I'd be curious in knowing what you thought of Stephen Hawkin's answer to that question.
Hawking wasn't answering that question. At least, not in this link.
This appears to be an article quote-mining Stephen Hawking to make it sound like he admits a universe which began therefore needs a creator. In fact he was saying no such thing, as becomes abundantly clear when we read the quote in context.
He was in fact reminiscing on the state of physics in the 1960's:
"The big question in cosmology in the early 60s, was did the universe have a beginning? Many scientists were instinctively opposed to the idea, because they felt that a point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God to determine how the universe would start off. Two alternative scenarios were therefore put forward..."
Quote-mined extract in bold. We can see how, taken alone, it paints a vastly different picture to the one Prof Hawking is actually painting.
A deceitful, underhand and consciously duplicitous move on the part of Evolution News, it would seem...
Here's Prof Hawking's full speech, if you'd like to examine it in detail, btw. Paragraph in question about two fifths of the way down:
Deletehttp://www.hawking.org.uk/my-life-in-physics.html
He asked you, here but your response was a little too...nuanced(?) to be taken as a solid yes.
DeleteYou replied:
I understand that science can only study physical things and draw conclusions based on experiments in the physical universe. If there is some other part of reality that extends apart from the physical universe, science is unable to do any tests or make any conclusions about that.
I agree with this, Ritchie agreed with this. You went on..
Science can also detect physical phenomena that it is completely at a loss to plausibly explain
Then, as scientists, we shouldn't try to explain them.
(for example, the appearance of the big bang singularity, the fine tuning of the constants in physics, or the image on the Shroud of Turin). So it is possible to look at the scientific work and draw theistic friendly conclusions.
No. Not as a scientist its not. However, if you want to draw a theistic friendly conclusion because we don't have conclusive naturalistic evidence, then that is your intuition not science.
I do not agree that science must assert that reality only contains material things and therefore atheism must be true.
Who is saying this? I do not agree to this either. The scientific method only applies to material things. Similarly, hammers don't work as reading glasses. Science does not prove the non-existence of the supernatural. It is by any rational definition outside the pervue of science to disprove. Its like you don't get it, but then...
Since science is unable to look at anything other than natural phenonema, it is unable to make statements about metaphyics either way.
Ok you get it. You agree, science presupposes naturalism.
Ritchie,
DeleteYou dodged. You told me I would have to agree to certain premises before you would even attempt an answer....I would gladly take one from you now if you'd care to share it?
I did answer your question once you conceded that the Universe had a beginning and was fine tuned for life. Once I gave you an answer, I don't remember you complaining about it. In fact, you I believe your exact words were "well said" or something to to that effect.
A deceitful, underhand and consciously duplicitous move on the part of Evolution News, it would seem...
Hogwash. The article was not quote mining Hawking. Everyone knows he's an atheist, that's no big secret. His attempts to argue that a multiverse popped into existence out of nothing has been debunked by his fellow scientists (which measurements from the LHC are also bearing out)...
The article was discussing the Stephen Hawking event and the state of physics and used part of his speech to illustrate the fact that atheistic scientists often think about the divine, despite the supposed tabboo on the subject.
To be quite honest with you, the article does a great job of illustrating what I call the anti-God effect from atheistic scientists when they are confronted with powerful evidence of design in the Universe. As the article notes:
Dr. Jastrow was interviewed at the end of his long, productive career. Commenting on God and the Astronomers, he agreed that the expansion of the universe "is a remarkable thing, because it has a very strong theological flavor to it." He acknowledged that a beginning implies a creation. A self-avowed materialist and agnostic, though, he realized he "cannot accept that." As an agnostic, he knew that "if there was a beginning, a moment of creation of the universe, then there was a Creator. And a Creator is not compatible with agnosticism."
Jastrow then went on to say that he could not accept that the world was the product of chance, either -- just atoms and molecules. "So you see, I'm in a completely hopeless bind," he remarked, "and I've stayed there." His materialistic philosophy prompted him to believe that the universe can be completely described by material substances and the forces that act on them. "But I find that unsatisfactory," he said; "In fact, it makes me uneasy. I feel I'm missing something... but I will not find out what I'm missing within my lifetime."
At the end of the day, atheistic scientists are just really smart atheists. Their hearts are still hardened and their will refuses to submit to God. As the scriptures say:
1 Corinthians 2:14
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
BTW, since I have your attention, I'd be interested in your response to this video, since I remember you saying a few weeks ago that the New Testament gospels got the names of the apostles wrong.
wg -
DeleteI did answer your question once you conceded that the Universe had a beginning and was fine tuned for life.
Ah, my apologies, I've found it. Your words exactly:
I understand that science can only study physical things and draw conclusions based on experiments in the physical universe. If there is some other part of reality that extends apart from the physical universe, science is unable to do any tests or make any conclusions about that.
So, baring this in mind, it is not unscientific to prohibit using the supernatural as part of our scientific explanations. Again, do you agree?
Hogwash. The article was not quote mining Hawking.
That is exactly what it is doing. It is making it sound like Hawkings is saying, as a fact, that we would need to turn to religion for a creator of the universe. Put those exact words into the context in which he said them, and it is clear he is saying no such thing. This is as blatant and shameless a piece of quote-mining as I have seen.
Everyone knows he's an atheist, that's no big secret. His attempts to argue that a multiverse popped into existence out of nothing has been debunked by his fellow scientists
You are confused. It seems you think the multi-universe hypothesis is a work of atheism, perhaps drawn up to counter the fine tuning argument as evidence for a God.
But this is not the case. The multi-universe theory was drawn up from astro-physics. It was drawn up to explain the problem of matter being destroyed at the centre of black holes. It really had no religious origins.
Stephen Hawking IS an atheist. And the multi-universe hypothesis CAN BE used to counter the fine-tuning argument (as I'm sure it sometimes is) but these points are really rather incidental. Debunking it really is no blow at all against atheism.
As for it actually being debunked, again you are getting ahead of yourself. It fails as a theory because it has barely anything in the way of supporting (or contradictory) evidence. We just don't know enough to decide either way.
At the end of the day, atheistic scientists are just really smart atheists. Their hearts are still hardened and their will refuses to submit to God.
What do you mean? I am an atheist. Do you think I am just being stubborn? Do you think I am refusing to submit to a God (which, running by that logic, I must believe in) out of sheer pride/arrogance/hatred/spite/wickedness/something?
I am an atheist because I fail to see compelling evidence for any God or gods. My opinion of God is the same as your opinion of Santa Claus. A story. And possibly a way to get children to behave. That is all. How would you react if a committed Santa Claus believer told you you had just hardened your heart against Santa?
I'd be interested in your response to this video,
I'll give that a watch and get right back to you...
Right, just got through the video and I have to say it doesn't seem to amount to much at all.
DeleteWhat exactly is Williams saying here? It all seems to add up to 'the gospel writers were familiar with the places they were writing about'. Okay. That's not a concept I particularly have a problem with. But what does that show, exactly? Charles Dickens has lots of little details about London in the novel Oliver. Is this in any way suggestive that the story isn't fiction?
I don't particularly have a problem with the argument he makes. Do the gospels show a familiarity with Israel? Fair enough, perhaps they do. My problem is what this proves, exactly.
Williams seems to think the gospel authors were either absolutely reliable eye-witnesses or absolute frauds inventing a story and setting it miles away. There is a huge middle ground of possibilities between the two.
But the biggest problem with the lecture was that it in no way addressed the significant problems with the idea of the gospels being eye-witness testimony. He calls them 'high quality eye-witness testimony' on the basis of the frequency with which they refer to Jesus as such as opposed to 'Christ', but he offers no suggestion as to how they could then record scenes which no disciple was there to witness, such as Jesus being tempted in the wilderness, Judas meeting with the Jewish authoriaties, or Jesus' hours alone in Gathsemane.
Moreover, it is a large amount of evidence that at least three of the gospels copied directly from each other. No degree of correlation between two works should surprise us if one basically copied from the other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels
It's quiet day at work, a form of super TGIF. I'm bored,Tim.
ReplyDeleteThornton said: Feel free to provide your alternate 'theory' for the history of life on Earth that explains the empirical data in a more detailed and consilient manner, has better predictive power, and is better supported with positive evidence.
ReplyDeleteWhat's stopping you?
It's called Intelligent Design
National Velour
ReplyDeleteThornton said: Feel free to provide your alternate 'theory' for the history of life on Earth that explains the empirical data in a more detailed and consilient manner, has better predictive power, and is better supported with positive evidence.
What's stopping you?
It's called Intelligent Design
OK, you have a placeholder name for your idea. Now all you need are those pesky details, like a mechanism, and a timeline, and some verified predictions, and a Designer.
Get busy.
"OK, you have a placeholder name for your idea. Now all you need are those pesky details, like a mechanism, and a timeline, and some verified predictions, and a Designer.
Delete"Get busy."
Some people are too busy to do your homework for you. Look it up yourself. You can start at PiltdownSuperman.com and jump from there.
Thorton
ReplyDeleteOK on 1,2,3, and 4.
"Define information as it refers to biological entities."
My definition would include meaning but kind of dont' feel like arguing for now.
Mein freund. :)
You know, I was thinking. I would like to hear a country song in German one day. That would be something.
This is your wish coming true.
DeleteHeh. And someone accused me of posting a link to shocking, inappropriate content. ;)
DeleteMay the wrath of FiFi be upon them
DeleteEugen ,you are one strange dude, in any language . Kudos
ReplyDeleteEugen
ReplyDelete"Define information as it refers to biological entities."
My definition would include meaning but kind of dont' feel like arguing for now.
Mein freund. :)
No worries amigo, I understand. As long as you understand that the information content of a sequence of characters and the meaning of a sequence are two very different things with two very different definitions in information theory. The two terms are not synonymous and not interchangeable.
You know, I was thinking. I would like to hear a country song in German one day. That would be something.
Be careful what you wish for. :)
LOL
ReplyDeleteCountry song in German is like a square circle!
Thanks to all, sorry for distractions.
Thornton, what is the alleged mechanism for evolution? Why can't evolutionists agree on it?
ReplyDeleteI.D states that life shows signs of being intelligently designed, such as DNA repair....but what does darwin's myth predict and why can't it be falsified???
National Velour
ReplyDeleteThornton, what is the alleged mechanism for evolution?
The basic mechanism is genetic variation (due to things like imperfect genetic replication, sexual recombination, neutral drift, horizontal gene transfer, etc) filtered by selection in organisms that maintain and accumulate heritable traits. The process has been ongoing for over 3 billion years, including over 600 million years with multi-celled animals.
What is the basic mechanism for ID?
Why can't evolutionists agree on it?
We do. Why can't IDCers agree on even the most fundamental things like a mechanism, or a timeline, or the degree of intervention, or even the number of designers?
I.D states that life shows signs of being intelligently designed, such as DNA repair
Why is DNA repair a necessarily sign of intelligent design? We have evidence that a degree of DNA self repair is an evolutionary adaptation to keep the amount of variation per generation at an optimum level.
....but what does darwin's myth predict and why can't it be falsified???
Evolution is very falsifiable, it just hasn't been falsified. Finding that the fossil phylogenetic tree grossly mismatches the genetic one would do it easily for example.
What possible observation would falsify intelligent design?
BTW, I notice you still can't give me any details at all about your intelligent design claims. Not a single one. So you've still just got just an empty placeholder of a name with ZERO added value.
What in the world is an empty placeholder name good for, scientifically speaking?
Thornton said: The basic mechanism is genetic variation (due to things like imperfect genetic replication, sexual recombination, neutral drift, horizontal gene transfer, etc
ReplyDeleteSo in other words, there IS no mechanism....it's really a free-for-all, anything goes type situation. That's what I thought. Lastly, how is the novel, genetic information created? Everything you mentioned is AFTER-the fact, so to speak. First you have to show how the new genetic information producing new traits is created.
Evolution is very falsifiable, it just hasn't been falsified. Finding that the fossil phylogenetic tree grossly mismatches the genetic one would do it easily for example.
Then consider the darwinian myth falsified:
Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirts--also known as tunicates--are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another," Syvanen says.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/a_primer_on_the_tree_of_life_p_1020151.html
National Velour
ReplyDeleteThornton said: The basic mechanism is genetic variation (due to things like imperfect genetic replication, sexual recombination, neutral drift, horizontal gene transfer, etc
So in other words, there IS no mechanism....it's really a free-for-all, anything goes type situation. That's what I thought.
I provided a relatively detailed mechanism, one that has been empirically observed to work both in the lab and in the field. You provided nothing at all for ID. Why do Creationists always have to resort to lying when pushing their agenda, always?
Lastly, how is the novel, genetic information created? Everything you mentioned is AFTER-the fact, so to speak. First you have to show how the new genetic information producing new traits is created.
The process I just described creates new genetic information. The information comes from the populations' interaction with its environment. Troy's post above at Feb 3, 2012 06:33 AM does a good job describing it. Why do Creationists always have to resort to lying when pushing their agenda, always?
Evolution is very falsifiable, it just hasn't been falsified. Finding that the fossil phylogenetic tree grossly mismatches the genetic one would do it easily for example.
Then consider the darwinian myth falsified:
I said a gross mismatch between the fossil and genetic trees, not a single known case of horizontal gene transfer that I already listed as a mechanism. You provided no way to falsify ID. Why do Creationists always have to resort to lying when pushing their agenda, always?
Since you keep cowardly avoiding any mention of the details of your Intelligent Design Creation hypothesis such as a mechanism and a timeline I'm going to take it as an admission that you have none. You have no evidence, you have no details. That means you have no theory.
You are however providing a classic example of the "Creationist Liar-for-Jesus syndrome" we've just been discussing, so you've got that going for you.
Thornton said: I provided a relatively detailed mechanism, one that has been empirically observed to work both in the lab and in the field. You provided nothing at all for ID.
ReplyDeleteUmmmm, no you actually didn't. You mentioned a bunch of different ways evolutionists believe genetic information can be transferred, but you never said what mechanism produces this information.
I said a gross mismatch between the fossil and genetic trees, not a single known case of horizontal gene transfer that I already listed as a mechanism.
What's the difference? And who determined it wasn't a "gross" mismatch?
Like I said, your darwinian myth is UNfalsifiable.
National Valium
ReplyDeleteThornton said: I provided a relatively detailed mechanism, one that has been empirically observed to work both in the lab and in the field. You provided nothing at all for ID.
Ummmm, no you actually didn't. You mentioned a bunch of different ways evolutionists believe genetic information can be transferred, but you never said what mechanism produces this information.
Yes I did provide a specific mechanism, and even pointed you to Troy's example above.
Looks like you've decided to just lie about and deny everything that was said and everything that was provided. Makes you look like a complete moron, but I bet you're used to it.
I said a gross mismatch between the fossil and genetic trees, not a single known case of horizontal gene transfer that I already listed as a mechanism.
What's the difference? And who determined it wasn't a "gross" mismatch?
A gross mismatch would be a significant part of the entire trees not lining up, say an entire phylum or class of life not matching. If there was such a huge disparity you wouldn't have to publicize it - science would already know about it and be investigating it.
Like I said, your darwinian myth is UNfalsifiable.
Not my problem you're too stupid to understand the difference between not falsifiable and not falsified.
Also not my problem you're a craven coward who can't supply a single detail about your IDiot brain-damaged claims, or tell us what would falsify IDC.
Mouthy idiots like you area dime a dozen Valium. Come back when you can do more than lie and wet yourself. I have no time or patience for willfully ignorant fools.
Scott
ReplyDeleteFeb 4, 2012 09:44 AM
"The idea that the universe consists of natural things, which are explainable and comprehensible"
Natural things means, things that we can known by our senses.
What do you understand by explainable and comprehensible?
Blas: Natural things means, things that we can known by our senses.
ReplyDeleteAhh, you're a naive empiricist like Cornelius?
We do not directly sense bibles or electrons. So are bibles and electrons supernatural?
If by bibles you mean the books, we sense them, and in the absolute naturalistic science of Ritchie electrons do not exists. Electrons are explanations for events we sense. The events exist, not the explanations. The events that make Rutherford postulate his atomic model exist. The atomic model of Rutherfor not.
ReplyDeleteBlas: What do you understand by explainable and comprehensible?
ReplyDeleteWhat does it mean to say something is explainable and comprehensible?
Perhaps the following will illustrate the difference...
Evolutionary theory explains how the knowledge of how to build the biosphere was created. It's a form of conjecture and refutation.
As a creationist, how do you explain how the knowledge God supposedly used to build the biosphere was created?
I'm guessing you do not merely think this is unexplainable in practice, but that it's unexplainable in principle as God "just was" complete with the knowledge of how to build the biosphere. This represents a barrier in that it's beyond human comprehension and problem solving.
Scott
ReplyDeleteFeb 6, 2012 12:51 PM
"What does it mean to say something is explainable and comprehensible?
Perhaps the following will illustrate the difference...
"Evolutionary theory explains how the knowledge of how to build the biosphere was created. It's a form of conjecture and refutation."
If you understand that ToE is just an explnation we can agree on that.
Blas: If by bibles you mean the books, we sense them...
ReplyDeleteWe know books exist because we sense them in what way? Why don't you explain how this actually occurs in detail?
Blas: If you understand that ToE is just an explnation we can agree on that.
ReplyDeleteAs opposed to what?
To a "fact".
DeleteFacts are not based on explanations?
DeleteNo facts are facts, observed with our senses.
DeleteExplanations are the way and why we think facts occurs.
Blas: No facts are facts, observed with our senses. Explanations are the way and why we think facts occurs.
DeleteThey are? For example, would you say that a specific lump of coal weights x number of pounds is a "fact" that we know through our senses?
From the Galilean Library entry on Theory Ladenness…
To return to examples, then, even a straightforward statement such as "this lump of coal weighs one kilogram" is riddled with theory. Whether we include inference from prior experience (i.e. that the heaviness from lifting pieces of coal is conserved over time); the apparatus required to derive weights; the physical theories upon which the instruments and concepts like weight and mass are based; other theories that determine the effect (if any) on weight at different locations; and so on; we are very far indeed from a "basic" proposition.
However, don't let me stop you. Why don't you explain how it's possible to observe facts though our senses. Please be specific.
You are putting me in the position of defending absolute naturalism when I almost agree with your quote(and I do not understand how you can say ToE is a fact is you agree with the quote) but I will try.
DeleteI would take the lump of coal and put it in a plate of a scale, then I would put a piece of iron that all agree to call number of pounds and I will check that the balance is equilibrated.
Blas: I would take the lump of coal and put it in a plate of a scale, then I would put a piece of iron that all agree to call number of pounds and I will check that the balance is equilibrated.
DeleteSo you can know how much a piece of iron weighs though your senses, but not a piece of coal?
For example, substitute "lump of coal" with "piece of iron".
To return to examples, then, even a straightforward statement such as "this piece of iron weighs one kilogram" is riddled with theory. Whether we include inference from prior experience (i.e. that the heaviness from lifting piece of iron is conserved over time); the apparatus required to derive weights; the physical theories upon which the instruments and concepts like weight and mass are based; other theories that determine the effect (if any) on weight at different locations; and so on; we are very far indeed from a "basic" proposition.
In other words, it's unclear how adding the weight of piece of iron, which is yet another theory laden observation, makes the weight of the coal a fact you "know" though your senses. In fact, shouldn't you conclude this just makes things worse by adding yet another explanation to the mix?
Again, why don't you start out by explaining how it's possible to observe facts though our senses in the first place. Please be specific.
In other words, it's unclear how adding the weight of piece of iron, (which is yet another theory laden observation) makes the weight of the coal a fact you "know" though your senses.
DeleteIn fact, shouldn't you conclude this just makes things worse by adding yet another explanation to the mix?
Again, why don't you start out by explaining how it's possible to observe facts though our senses in the first place. Please be specific.
Well you want me to go starting to the basics. I will try again.
I trough my eyes see a piece of coal.
I trough my eyes see a spring.
I hang the spring.
I put my inch on the spring and count how many times I need to put my inches to cover the lenght of the spring.
I hang a bottle to the spring
I fill half of the bottle with water, and count how many times I have to put my inch to cover the lenght of the spring.
I fill the bottle with different quantities of water and observe different number of inches I need to cover the lenght of the spring.
Same quantities of water, same time of inches, more water, more inches, less water less inches.
I change the bottle of water for the coal, and measure the how many inches I need to cover the lenght of the spring .
I take away the coal and hang again the bottlr. I start to fill the bottle until I need the same number of inches to cover the length of spring when the spring were with the coal.
Now I can say that the coal change the number of inches I need to cover the lenght of the spring as the quantitie of water I put in the bottle.
Is easy to say that I see the coal fall, the sun rise, the wood burn producing light and heat. All facts observed with my senses.
If it is not with senses how do you observe facts?
Blas,
DeleteHow do you know a particular arrangement of springs, water, inches, etc., will end up revealing the actual weight of the lump of coal? Do you know this through your senses? If so, how?
More specially….
- Do your know the accuracy of this arrangement of springs, water, inches, etc. will be conserved at at every location through your senses? (it previously worked here, so it will work the same over there, or everywhere else. )
- Do your know the accuracy will be conserved over time with your senses? (it worked the last n number of times, so it will work this time as well)
- Do you know that the light was not manipulated by advanced aliens or a supernatural being after it bouncing off these objects, but before in entered your eyes, so it only appears that a number of inches were covered, through your senses?
- Or perhaps the light made it to your eyes, but the electrical impulses it created were tampered with by a supernatural being before they reached your brain? Do you know this did not occur though your senses as well?
How do you know a supernatural being did not reduce the mass of the lump of coal, then change the laws of physics in just the right way so it appears that the coal weighs the same? Or a supernatural being modified the scale in some way so it appears to weigh the same? Can you know this didn't occur though your senses, or do you assume it's the case because you belief that God would only do that on special occasions, or that he doesn't concern himself with these sorts of matters?
In other words, all of these observations are based on a number of explanations that cannot be "known" to be true with our senses alone. They are theory laden.
As such, facts are based on explanations, not direct observations.
Scott
DeleteFeb 8, 2012 11:17 AM
"As such, facts are based on explanations, not direct observations."
And what is an explanation? What explain an explanation?
Blas: And what is an explanation? What explain an explanation?
DeleteExplanations represent some unseen state of affairs that explains the seen.
See the following TED talk by David Deutsch A new way to explain explanation.
Empiricism is inadequate because, well, scientific theories explain the seen in terms of the unseen. And the unseen, you have to admit, doesn't come to us through the senses. We don't see those nuclear reactions in stars. We don't see the origin of species. We don't see the curvature of space-time, and other universes. But we know about those things. How?
Well, the classic empiricist answer is induction. The unseen resembles the seen. But it doesn't. You know what the clinching evidence was that space-time is curved? It was a photograph, not of space-time, but of an eclipse, with a dot there rather than there. And the evidence for evolution? Some rocks and some finches. And parallel universes? Again: dots there, rather than there, on a screen. What we see, in all these cases, bears no resemblance to the reality that we conclude is responsible -- only a long chain of theoretical reasoning and interpretation connects them.
"Ah!" say creationists. "So you admit it's all interpretation. No one has ever seen evolution. We see rocks. You have your interpretation. We have ours. Yours comes from guesswork, ours from the Bible." But what creationist and empiricists both ignore is that, in that sense, no one has ever seen a bible either, that the eye only detects light, which we don't perceive. Brains only detect nerve impulses. And they don't perceive even those as what they really are, namely electrical crackles. So we perceive nothing as what it really is.
Our connection to reality is never just perception. It's always, as Karl Popper put it, theory-laden. Scientific knowledge isn't derived from anything. It's like all knowledge. It's conjectural, guesswork, tested by observation, not derived from it.
[...]
The search for hard-to-vary explanations is the origin of all progress. It's the basic regulating principle of the Enlightenment. So, in science, two false approaches blight progress. One is well known: untestable theories. But the more important one is explanationless theories. Whenever you're told that some existing statistical trend will continue, but you aren't given a hard-to-vary account of what causes that trend, you're being told a wizard did it.
[...]
That the truth consists of hard to vary assertions about reality is the most important fact about the physical world. It's a fact that is, itself, unseen, yet impossible to vary.
ScottFeb 9,
Delete2012 10:54 PM
"Explanations represent some unseen state of affairs that explains the seen."
You have two problems with that definition, 1) How I get a representation? Is it real(mean physical)?
2) How can beleive a representation of what we seen if we cannot trust in what we seen?
Blas: You have two problems with that definition, 1) How I get a representation? Is it real(mean physical)?
DeleteIt's a cloudy day. In reality, the sun is rising. However, based on our theories of geometry and optics (explanations), we do not expect to experience the sun rising. Why?
Specifically, our theory of optics explains when we should expect light to be transmitted through objects. And geometry explains that the sun would be above the clouds, that we would be below the clouds them on the earth's surface, and that the earth as a whole is rotating. All of theses things represent explanations of things *are*, in reality, which we use to determine how to interpret what we experience.
For example, we do not think the sun did not rise, just because we did not experience it rising. Do we?
Blas: 2) How can beleive a representation of what we seen if we cannot trust in what we seen?
Science is about correcting errors. That's how we create knowledge. As such, all facts are open to correction. In fact, we know that scientific theories contain errors. We expect it based on how knowledge is created. The question is where and to what degree.
To quote Richard Feynman..
[In science] The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
Blas,
What's your explanation as to how we create knowledge? Is it magic? Do we create knowledge because, that's just what God must have wanted?
Scott, you are not answering my question. How we build a representation that explain what we see? in base of what we build a teory? Are the representaion physical?
Delete"What's your explanation as to how we create knowledge? Is it magic? Do we create knowledge because, that's just what God must have wanted?"
We apply the Idea of beeing to what we perceive troguh our senses.
Blas: Scott, you are not answering my question. How we build a representation that explain what we see? in base of what we build a teory? Are the representaion physical?
DeleteI've answered your question several times. We create theories via conjecture, which we then test for errors using observations.
New observations may lead us to find existing theories lacking in their ability to explain what we observe. As such, we use conjecture to modify an existing theory or even form a completely new theory, then test them via observations.
Theories are tested by observations, not derived from them.
Blas: We apply the Idea of beeing to what we perceive troguh our senses.
But the idea of "being" doesn't come though our senses. Again, to quote Deutsch…
Empiricism is inadequate because, well, scientific theories explain the seen in terms of the unseen. And the unseen, you have to admit, doesn't come to us through the senses. We don't see those nuclear reactions in stars. We don't see the origin of species. We don't see the curvature of space-time, and other universes. But we know about those things. …
That the input from your senses actually represents a flower depends on a number of explanations which you cannot positively prove as true though your senses. We used conjecture to create explanations about what these sensory inputs represent, which we test via observation. Those that are not found to be in error are used as the basis to explain other observations, etc.
At any time, we might find observations that reveal explanations are in error. At which point, they would be reevaluated, along with explanations we've built on top of them. We would again use conjecture to either modify an existing explanation, or create an entirely new one.
This is how science works.
Blas: So according to you do not exist the concept of false theory.
DeleteI'm not clear why you think this is the case. I'm a realist, so I think there are false theories. The question is, how could we know a theory is false? Do you have an explanation as to how we could know this for certain?
All of our theories contain errors to some degree. That is, they are not exhaustively true. All we can do is continually refine them to become more accurate. But they also contain truth to some degree. For example, even the falsified theory that the earth was flat contains truth, in that when you're standing on the earth's surface it appears *as if* it was flat.
Blas: For you only exists errors in the explanation of the data gathered trough our senses.
Again, it's not that they do not exist. Rather, I'm referring to what we can know, though our senses. So, for me, all we can know is that we can find errors in our explanations by exposing them to empirical criticism (observations).
Blas: But how do you know it is an error in the explanation? It is because a data from our senses do not fit the explanation? How do you know the data do not fit?
Because the explanation either contradicts itself or it contradicts other aspects of our current, best explanations. It doesn't add up when we attempt to take it seriously as an explanation of how things *are* in reality.
Blas: One more question if for you theory of evolution is only an educated guess, we can never know if it really happened or is happening now
It seems that Cornelius has indoctrinated you well.
First, you're assuming this is only a "problem" for evolution in particular, rater than science as a whole. However, nothing I've outlined here is specific to evolutionary theory. Rather, it's applicable in the case of all field and all scientific facts. Suggesting otherwise is view that is narrow in scope.
Second, it's not "only" an educated guess. That wo