tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post4724999707720765136..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: This Journalist Uses Critical ThinkingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2323388069026493832014-02-16T08:02:46.444-08:002014-02-16T08:02:46.444-08:00Scott: Cornelius objects to evolution being *the* ...Scott: Cornelius objects to evolution being *the* explanation for biological complexity, but doesn't object to dinosaurs being *the* explanation for fossils.<br /><br />J: But there is no evidence that fossils are effects of completely non-biological conditions. And there IS evidence that they ARE the effects of biological conditions.<br /><br />On the other hand, there is ZERO evidence that the evolution we observe is only the most recent evolutionary history of a UCA as opposed to an SA terrestrial, biological history. <br /><br />IOW, inductive criteria works perfectly for the conclusion that critters/plants are necessary conditions of fossils. But inductive criteria can't even BE applied to the question of UCA vs. SA. There are no explanations of a complete UCA or SA history. And inductive criteria apply TO explanations.<br /><br />But analogical explanation IS explanation that humans find necessary to function, however non-detailed. Analogical explanation has its own kind of BREADTH. And breadth of explanation is one of the inductive criteria for hypothesis acceptance/rejection.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25526772311748143422014-02-12T03:13:07.307-08:002014-02-12T03:13:07.307-08:00Scott you said
"We do not derive theories f...Scott you said <br /><br />"We do not derive theories from observations. Rather, we always start out with conjecture, then apply criticism."<br /><br />and now you said<br /><br />"What we start out with are problems, not observations. "<br /><br />I assume that for you "problems" and "conjectures have the same meaning.<br /><br />Then my question still stands:<br /><br />How can we start with s conjecture? How do we build a conjecture?<br /><br />How do we realize that we have a problem?Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71070863188677613212014-02-11T12:14:32.344-08:002014-02-11T12:14:32.344-08:00Blas,
What we start out with are problems, not o...Blas, <br /><br />What we start out with are problems, not observations. <br /><br />New observations (which are themselves theory laden) indicate a new problem or reveal deficiencies in our current theories. At which point, we create explanatory theories about how to solve them. <br /><br />The key point is that our explanatory theories are not guaranteed to solve the problem in question. They are intuitions or guesses. Nor do we just guess and stop there. Specifically, we criticize our conjectured theories in hope of finding and discarding errors. <br /><br />It's this error correcting process that allows us to make progress. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39302207259172990682014-02-11T12:04:26.504-08:002014-02-11T12:04:26.504-08:00Joe: How the heck can one develop a theory about s...Joe: How the heck can one develop a theory about something without first observing it and then wondering about it? How does THAT work exactly?<br /><br />We start out with a problem, then conjecture one or more solutions to that problem. IOW, we do not observe solutions. So, what we start out with are guesses, intuitions, etc. This is because we have no guarantee they will actually solve the problem at hand. <br /><br />Joe: Did Darwin derive his theories from A) traveling around the world making many observations and trying to explain them or B) staying home and drinking tea?<br /><br />Being mistaken about the role of empirical observations (getting it backwards) isn't the same as saying empirical observations do not play a role at all. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83273785969321505852014-02-11T10:24:19.273-08:002014-02-11T10:24:19.273-08:00Scott said :we do not think they are "true&qu...Scott said :we do not think they are "true" in the sense you seem to be implying. "<br /><br />I´m not implying nothing just I want to know what do you understand by knowledge.<br /><br />Scott said<br /><br /> "Since we start out with conjecture,"<br /><br />How can we start with s conjecture? How do we build a conjecture? <br /><br /><br />Scott said<br />"Since we start out with the idea that all theories contain errors to some degree and are incomplete,"<br /><br />Why do we start with this idea? Where that idea come from? How do we get ideas? <br /><br /><br />Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1722933225925241392014-02-11T05:33:03.108-08:002014-02-11T05:33:03.108-08:00IA: Myers says that "it can't be" th...IA: Myers says that "it can't be" that novel evolutionary traits arise suddenly (why can't it, when the evidence shows precisely that?) yet he scolds those who reject his inanity as committing a "failure of imagination".<br /><br />Evidence doesn’t show anything without first putting it into an explanatory framework, regardless of how shallow. So, the idea that “evidence shows precisely that” includes some assumptions you have’t disclosed, such as inductivism, which does include the idea that we can extrapolate observations without putting them into an explanatory framework. <br /><br />the principle of Evolution includes the theory that biological complexity arises from variation and selection. It’s an emergent process, which falls under our current best explanation for the universal growth of knowledge. “it can’t be” is part of the theory which prohibits traits from appearing in a specific way. That’s what makes it a good theory. <br /><br /><i>Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.</i> <br />- Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations. <br /><br />If I designer already had the knowledge of how to build any organism that did exist, does exist or could possibility exist, it could have created those traits in any order, including most to least complex, or even all at once. <br /><br />Yet, I think we’d both agree that not what the fossil record suggests. <br /><br />On the other hand, we can explain the fossil record in that nature cannot build organisms until the knowledge of how to build them was created. That fits the prohibition and does so very well. <br /><br />IA: Science isn't about an "imagination" that goes against the evidence. That would be science fiction. <br /><br />Again, you’re assuming that we can extrapolate observations without first putting them into some kind of explanatory framework. Imagination is a form of conjecture. But we do not stop there. We then criticize those conjectures and discard errors. That’s how we make progress. <br /><br />IA In fact, nobody has any clue how the eye or anything else formed.<br />If you assume that knowledge in specific spheres only comes from authoritative sources, it would come as no surprise that you’d conclude evolution couldn’t have possibility been the origin of that knowledge because it’s not an authoritative source. As such, it would come as no surprise that you’d conclude it couldn’t explain eyes, etc. This is the “failure of imagination” being referred to. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10401715865287970452014-02-09T18:42:25.751-08:002014-02-09T18:42:25.751-08:00Is there something about the above you do not unde...Is there something about the above you do not understand?<br /><br />All observations are theory laden, including those of the fossil record. Yet, Cornelius objects to evolutionary theory because it's theory laden. Go figure. <br /><br />Specifically, he appeals to the fossil record in his argument, despite there being an infinite number of interpretations of fossils that suggest dinosaurs never even existed. At which point they would be irrelevant to evolutionary theory. <br /><br />Cornelius objects to evolution being *the* explanation for biological complexity, but doesn't object to dinosaurs being *the* explanation for fossils. His argument is parochial because he selectively applies it to some theories, but not others. <br /><br />Theory laden-ness is a bad criticism because it's applicable to all observations. So, it cannot be used in a critical way.<br /><br />Jeff: There is NO humanly-conceived explanation of a UCA history, Scott. <br /><br />There isn't? Then you should have no problem should I pose the same question to you. How is it possible extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework of some kind?<br /><br />How would you, or any one else, go about actually doing it, in practice? Please be specific. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79259925052763164032014-02-08T19:10:41.330-08:002014-02-08T19:10:41.330-08:00Scott: But, as always, Cornelius should feel free ...Scott: But, as always, Cornelius should feel free to explain how it's possible to extrapolate observations without first putting them into some kind of explanatory framework. <br /><br />J: An explanation of a set of historical states of affairs is a posited antecedent state of affairs that IMPLIES the subsequent states of affairs. There is NO humanly-conceived explanation of a UCA history, Scott. What precisely are you defining an explanation to be?Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35755162471691141452014-02-08T19:04:36.107-08:002014-02-08T19:04:36.107-08:00IntelligentAnimation: There is an enormous amount ...IntelligentAnimation: There is an enormous amount of evidence, and I hate to have someone misrepresenting the facts.<br /><br />J: Define what you mean by evidence and then declare to me the evidence, per that definition, for Universal Common Ancestry. Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34295837545148280272014-02-08T17:46:25.060-08:002014-02-08T17:46:25.060-08:00Did Darwin derive his theories from A) traveling a...Did Darwin derive his theories from A) traveling around the world making many <b>observations</b> and trying to explain them or B) staying home and drinking tea?<br /><br />Was the Beagle the ship he traveled on or the type of dog he had?Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63854825749642601792014-02-08T13:20:52.165-08:002014-02-08T13:20:52.165-08:00Well we make observations of the world and develop...Well we make observations of the world and develop theories to explain what we observe.<br /><br />Science asks 3 basic questions- What's there? How does it work? How did it come to be the way it is?<br /><br />We make an observation, it drives our curiousity and we endeavor to figure it out by developing hypothese and models to test them.<br /><br />How the heck can one develop a theory about something without first observing it and then wondering about it? How does THAT work exactly?Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88760210296340879932014-02-08T06:55:29.995-08:002014-02-08T06:55:29.995-08:00We do? How does that work, exactly? Please be spec...We do? How does that work, exactly? Please be specific.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12113860042876031422014-02-08T05:42:24.779-08:002014-02-08T05:42:24.779-08:00Of course we derive theories from observations. Sc...Of course we derive theories from observations. Science operates via observations.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86217662608186874552014-02-07T19:42:30.150-08:002014-02-07T19:42:30.150-08:00CH, I have to agree that the line of reasoning is ...CH, I have to agree that the line of reasoning is somewhat circular in that there is an extreme confirmation bias.<br /><br />Myers says that "it can't be" that novel evolutionary traits arise suddenly (why can't it, when the evidence shows precisely that?) yet he scolds those who reject his inanity as committing a "failure of imagination".<br /><br />Science isn't about an "imagination" that goes against the evidence. That would be science fiction. Imagination is fine as long as it has its place and all are clear that it is fantasy, not fact.<br /><br />So where is that clarity when claiming the eye is "explained" by evolution? A less educated reader might wrongly conclude by that sort of strident falsehood that scientists really have this thing settled. In fact, nobody has any clue how the eye or anything else formed.<br /><br />Replacing facts with imagined wishful thinking is the very definition of pseudoscience.IntelligentAnimationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08452719450715806668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67784479694831192372014-02-07T18:00:46.114-08:002014-02-07T18:00:46.114-08:00Jeff, I agree with you about suppression of dissen...Jeff, I agree with you about suppression of dissent, but how can you honestly claim "no positive evidence"? There is an enormous amount of evidence, and I hate to have someone misrepresenting the facts.<br /><br />Question it all you want, but don't say there is no evidence.IntelligentAnimationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08452719450715806668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44501643890937440772014-02-07T10:39:43.371-08:002014-02-07T10:39:43.371-08:00Denying that we can make progress when it conflict...Denying that we can make progress when it conflicts with your theological views is moral?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32660708899785929872014-02-07T10:38:12.563-08:002014-02-07T10:38:12.563-08:00Jeff,
Cornelius objects to the article on the gr...Jeff, <br /><br />Cornelius objects to the article on the grounds that evolutionists are putting observations into an explanatory framework. Specially, they think Evolution is *the* explanation for biological adaptive complexity, not merely an interpretation. <br /><br />However, when he suggests the fossil record actually is relevant to the issue in question, he's referring to paleontologists who themselves consider dinosaurs *the* explanation of fossils, despite an infinite number of interpretations which suggest that dinosaurs never even existed. At which point, the fossil record would be irrelevant to evolutionary theory. Yet he seems to think it *is* relevant.<br /><br />More to the point, it's unclear how it's even possible to interpret any observations, let alone those of the biosphere, without putting them into some kind of explanatory framework, even if it's extremely bad one. <br /><br />So, Cornelius' argument is yet again parochial in that it is narrow in scope. He only does not take it seriously, because it's applicable to the fossil record, which re references, and it would also be "applicable" to not just evolutionary theory. <br /><br />IOW, it's a bad criticism because it's applicable to all observations. <br /><br />But, as always, Cornelius should feel free to explain how it's possible to extrapolate observations without first putting them into some kind of explanatory framework. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67532759786193243282014-02-07T10:17:25.594-08:002014-02-07T10:17:25.594-08:00Blas: 1) What would be different from the scientif...Blas: 1) What would be different from the scientific stand point if each of explanatory frameworks were true?<br /><br />You seem to have it backwards. We do not derive theories from observations. Rather, we always start out with conjecture, then apply criticism. In the case of science, those criticisms include empirical observations. <br /><br />So, what's different is the explanations for those empirical observations, not the observations themselves (which also happen to be theory laden)<br /><br />Blas: 2) How do you test which of that explanatory frameworks are true?<br /><br />Again, you seem to have it backwards. Since we start out with conjecture, what we do is look for explanatory theories that are found to conflict with observations, then improve or discard and replace them. Since we we start out with the idea that all theories contain errors to some degree and are incomplete, we do not think they are "true" in the sense you seem to be implying. <br /><br />We make progress by being less wrong. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31144008373277445492014-02-06T04:53:22.781-08:002014-02-06T04:53:22.781-08:00Scott
"In all of these cases, observations of...Scott<br />"In all of these cases, observations of the fossil record tell us nothing, one way or the other, unless we first put them in an explanatory framework."<br /><br />1) What would be different from the scientific stand point if each of explanatory frameworks were true?<br />2) How do you test which of that explanatory frameworks are true?Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76478790287544506172014-02-06T04:14:49.337-08:002014-02-06T04:14:49.337-08:00Scott: It's this very same explanation that te...Scott: It's this very same explanation that tells us there should be gaps in the fossil records, which would not preserve every transition. <br /><br />J: The problem is that the same geological contingencies that render putative gaps conceivable in terms of story-telling also render currently perceived stratigraphic ranges conceivably non-related to exisential succession. As Benton admitted:<br /><br />"Assessing the quality of the fossil record is notoriously hard, and many recent attempts have used sampling proxies that can be questioned... A single answer to the question of whether the fossil record is driven by macroevolution or megabias is unlikely ever to emerge because of temporal, geographical, and taxonomic variance in the data."<br /><br />When you have no positive evidence, suppression of dissent is immoral.<br />Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32490276026194270302014-02-05T15:40:00.839-08:002014-02-05T15:40:00.839-08:00CH: The only catch to the conclusion was that it w...CH: The only catch to the conclusion was that it was circular. The evolutionists, who believe evolution is a fact, first assumed the evolution of the eye in order to solve the problem of the evolution of the eye.<br /><br />When you explain how it's possible to extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory context, then you'll have an argument (and you'll probably win a Nobel Prize as well). Until then, this is merely hand waving. <br /><br />For example.. <br /><br />CH: When in doubt, doubt the data. Paleontologists agree that the fossil record reveals abrupt appearances, but when convenient evolutionists can always protect their theory with those gaps in the fossil record.<br /><br />We do not "doubt" the fossil record. Rather, the reason why observations of the fossil record are even relevant at all is because of our best, current explanation of why fossils form in the first place. It's this very same explanation that tells us there should be gaps in the fossil records, which would not preserve every transition. <br /><br />But, according to you, isn’t the very relevance of the fossil record circular because it first puts those observations in an explanatory framework to extrapolate them? <br /><br />To revisit an old question, are dinosaurs merely an interpretation of our best explanation of fossils? Or are they *the* explanation for fossils? <br /><br />After all, there are an infinite number of rival interpretations that accept the same evidence, yet suggest that dinosaurs never existed millions of years ago. In which case, the fossil record would not be even remotely relevant in the question of evolution. At all. Period. <br /><br />For example, there is the rival interpretation that fossils only come into existence when they are consciously observed. Therefore, fossils are no older than human beings. As such, they are not evidence of dinosaurs, but evidence of acts of those particular observations. <br /> <br />Another interpretation would be that dinosaurs are such weird animals that conventional logic simply doesn't apply to them. This is the same sort of reasoning that suggests human consciousness is so unique that determinism simply doesn't apply to it. <br /><br />One could suggests It's meaningless to ask if dinosaurs were real or just a useful fiction to explain fossils. <br /><br />Not to mention the rival interpretation that designer chose to create the world we observe 30 second ago. Therefore, dinosaurs couldn't be the explanation for fossils, because they didn't exist until 30 seconds ago. <br /><br />In all of these cases, observations of the fossil record tell us nothing, one way or the other, unless we first put them in an explanatory framework. And, consequently, they would be irrelevant to evolutionary theory. So, gaps, or the lack there of, wouldn’t be relevant at all.<br /><br />Yet, you seem to think they are relevant.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50367018215188480862014-02-05T05:06:16.261-08:002014-02-05T05:06:16.261-08:00Blinders (UK), also known as blinkers (US) are a p...Blinders (UK), also known as blinkers (US) are a piece of horse tack that prevent the horse seeing to the rear and, in some cases, to the side. They usually are made of leather or plastic cups that are placed on either side of the eyes, either attached to a bridle or to an independent hood. (Wikipedia)<br />Are the blinders of evolutionists made of leather or of blind faith?<br />I wonder that most of them are blind and see only the piece of reality, a small one.<br />Anyway, thank you for your comments Cornelius! Levanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17614868113298114488noreply@blogger.com