Evolution and creationism

[tnetennba]

@g_under_p

I was merely trying to succinctly state that scientists can and do make assumptions about things they have not verified.

Cite?

[tnetennba]

@g_under_p

You won’t believe me, but I did. It clicked why people were equating what I was posting to saying “I’ve never personally verified my car isn’t made out of cheese, so how do I really know?”. But subtle as it is, my argument was never intended to be about the fact that you can’t know everything. It is the fact that we don’t know everything, and yet insist we are right, that can sometimes make us no better than the people we disagree with and hold an opposing viewpoint to.

All of those arguments you were unable or unwilling to demonstrate you’d read thoroughly explained why this was a fallacious argument. “We,” being evolutionists, don’t NEED to know everything, we don’t “insist we are right,” so much as insist that the evidence we have supports are theory, and that makes us… I don’t want to say “better,” but will say, “more scientific” than the people we disagree with. You may hold that you are correct, but that’s why you were mistaken for a closet creationist – it sounds like you don’t understand the difference between religious dogma and scientific theory.

[g_under_p]

Originally by p/g
I was merely trying to succinctly state that scientists can and do make assumptions about things they have not verified.

Originally by cricetus
Cite?

Back down this road, huh? For my graduate thesis I wrote a paper outlining a way to calculate the capacitance of various structures. I needed to verify that my calculations were correct, so I pulled up other papers that had calculated the capacitance (using a different method) of similar structures to compare my results to. I assumed that since I was comparing my results to reputable engineers who had published their work in a reputable journal on electromagnetics that their results were accurate. I did not repeat their experiments to verify they didn’t fudge their results.

Science, as a whole, does verify its results and makes no assumptions. Individual scientists are limited in the extent to which they can do this. My statement is about scientists, not science.

Originally by cricetus
All of those arguments you were unable or unwilling to demonstrate you’d read thoroughly explained why this was a fallacious argument.

Are you referring to the arguments posted here, or the arguments for/against evolution?

Originally by cricetus
“We,” being evolutionists, don’t NEED to know everything, we don’t “insist we are right,” so much as insist that the evidence we have supports are theory, and that makes us… I don’t want to say “better,” but will say, “more scientific” than the people we disagree with.

“We” are only “more scientific” if we don’t prejudge the information, considering each new piece of information on its own merits. Would you disagree with that?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

You have a very generous definition of “information” if you think it includes creationist fallacies.

If you know that A is true, there is no need to consider any argument that A is not true. It’s just that simple.

[John_Mace]

@g_under_p

I never claimed he needed to question the dating methods every time he ran one. I did say that he has never verified it, though. In short, he was relying on a piece of data which he is presently unable to prove is valid. He assumes he can validate it. But there is that pesky word assume. This isn’t illogical, wrong or even unexpected. Given that he is certain evolution is true, then assuming a fact which supports evolution is also true is the exact right thing to do. It is logical. It isn’t scientific, but it is logical.

What do you think scientists learn in school? I’m not even an archeologist, but I’ve “verified” the dating techniques they use., Why do you assume they have not?

I wouldn’t really call it lumping everyone into the same category. It is more like an average over a large population. Given information which is neither black nor white, I think most people will tend to make an attempt to align it with whatever truths they believe. And this world is full of a lot of greys, unfortunately. So, once you have your viewpoint set, it is easy to look at something and say, “aha! That matches what I was expecting.” And the other guy on the other side is doing the exact same thing. And if something DOES happen to be more black than white, each side then tends to deal with it as I’ve tried to point out all along.

Do you really think that creationists and scientists do this equally? When was the last time creationism revised it’s “theory”? When was the last time scientists revised the theory of evolution? Once again, you are stating something which is SIMPLY NOT TRUE. Each side DOES NOT tend to deal with new information the same way. One side, creationism, ignores ALL new data and NEVER modifies it’s “theory”. The other side integrated new data into it’s theory and modifies things as needed. How can you possibly call that the same?

I obviously implied something I didn’t mean to. At the heart of evolutionary theory is the scientific method which gives us what we have today. At the heart of creationism is the supposition (I won’t grace it with the term “theory”) that “God did it”. Reaching one viewpoint through deduction and reason vs. “faith” are two very different things. But once entrenched in your viewpoint, my pointless point is that both creationist and evolutionist will react to new information in similar ways, as I’ve outlined above. A pure scientist, in an ideal world, would not make such a reaction. It would be really nice to think evolutionists are more open to conflicting data, but my own personal experiences and the reactions of Diogenes and cricetus convince me otherwise. Sure, three examples is hardly statistically significant. But to my mind, there was always this conflict of why creationists just couldn’t seem to react to new information logically. I have now come to this hypotheses, i.e., my pointless point.

I think all of us probably likes to think of ourselves as rational. We make decisions and conclusions based on what we know. An evolutionist, looking at a creationist, might find it hard to understand how the creationist is reacting rationally. This lack of understanding had always been a problem for me, to be sure. It just looked so wrong. Until I realized I do the same thing for the same reasons. It was when I realized that we started from different points and then dealt with the information from there that I realized they aren’t acting irrationally to the new information. Once I reached that point, I realized that if they aren’t acting irrationally to new information, then they aren’t going to move from their position. It isn’t until you can force someone to look deeper that you have a chance of getting them to move off their position. The force is usually the case of a compelling argument.

It is because scientists have been willing to move off their position, albeit sometimes getting that movement has been rather… difficult, that we have the sound theory of evolution we have today.

My emphasis. NO THEY DO NOT. A creationist will never, ever, ever , ever, EVER integrate new data into his “theory”, because the “theory” relies 100% on faith. If he modifies his “theory” from “God did it” to something of natural causes, then HE NO LONGER IS A CREATIONIST. That “theory” is not based on ANY DATA AT ALL. NONE, NADA, ZIP.

[g_under_p]

Originally by Diogenes
If you know that A is true, there is no need to consider any argument that A is not true. It’s just that simple.

Yeah, we kinda covered this a page or two back when we were talking about ~(A&B).

In the real world, though, while we don’t presently have anything better than A, we don’t assume it will always be true. If A isn’t falsifiable, it isn’t scientific. Therefore, there must be something which can falsify A, however remote that possibility might be. I don’t for a moment suspect any creationist has any information that can do that, but here in my world, it is kind of important for me to understand creationist arguments and be able to refute them. I don’t mean refute them by saying “I know A is true and therefore B can’t be true”, but be able to refute them by showing whatever information they have to support creationism is utter nonsense. That is how you change minds, not by insisting you’re right.

As I said earlier, I’m an atheist. My wife is not. She has no conflict between creationism and evolution, but I’m not certain the same can be said of the church to which she belongs. She really likes this church and the congregation and doesn’t want to leave it. Evolution and creationism isn’t really something she needs to deal with, fortunately, but my kids interact with the other kids in the church and inevitably they will hear about this “debate” and ask questions. I think I owe my kids more than “we’re right and therefore they must be wrong”.

There is also the scientist side of me that is just curious about why there is even a debate to begin with.

All this is a complete non-sequitur, though. Your argument, while sound, doesn’t work in the real world. You can utterly dismiss creationist “information” with a wave of your hand and sleep well at night. More power to you. While I don’t doubt the “information” will eventually fail, my scientist side is curious why.

Deep breath

And now that I’ve typed that I realize how much that sounds like the “concerned evolutionist” statement you made way back in the beginning. Ugh. I assure you, though, it really is just curiosity. I’ve no concerns about evolution.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Well, I’m convinced you’re not a covert creationist, for whatever that’s worth.

Welcome to the board, by the way.

[g_under_p]

Originally by John Mace
What do you think scientists learn in school? I’m not even an archeologist, but I’ve “verified” the dating techniques they use., Why do you assume they have not?

This comes back to the level of verification.

Originally by John Mace
Do you really think that creationists and scientists do this equally? When was the last time creationism revised it’s “theory”? When was the last time scientists revised the theory of evolution? Once again, you are stating something which is SIMPLY NOT TRUE. Each side DOES NOT tend to deal with new information the same way. One side, creationism, ignores ALL new data and NEVER modifies it’s “theory”. The other side integrated new data into it’s theory and modifies things as needed. How can you possibly call that the same?

I think that as a group, you are dead on. Obviously the evolutionist will spend much more time disputing/confirming things or we wouldn’t be where we are today. But as a practical matter, to the average schmo on the street, I’m not sure that holds.

Originally by John Mace
My emphasis. NO THEY DO NOT. A creationist will never, ever, ever , ever, EVER integrate new data into his “theory”, because the “theory” relies 100% on faith. If he modifies his “theory” from “God did it” to something of natural causes, then HE NO LONGER IS A CREATIONIST. That “theory” is not based on ANY DATA AT ALL. NONE, NADA, ZIP.

In my view, creationists jumped to the conclusion of the cause and now search for ways to support that belief. Scientists look at the information and try to form a conclusion, then use further information to test that conclusion. Ideally. And while a creationists will never, ever, ever, ever, EVER integrate new data into his “theory”, I’ve found that there is a great deal of outright dismissal that exists within everyone. The difference is that eventually science will integrate the new information as appropriate.

[g_under_p]

Originally by Diogenes
Well, I’m convinced you’re not a covert creationist, for whatever that’s worth.

Welcome to the board, by the way.

It’s worth more than you might realize.

Thanks. Hello and goodbye, unfortunately.

[tnetennba]

@g_under_p

Back down this road, huh?

It’s a road you’ve yet to drive. You’ve taken a number of side paths, but have not yet consented that “trust in the scientific community” is quite different from faith, or the more important point that “a tentative scientific position” is way, way different from faith because scientiests will, if necessary, revise their theories if new information.

Your depsarate, unsportsmanlike attempts to hammer the square peg of my not getting your (poorly phrased and inaccurately rendered) calculus (your cite, I repeat, didn’t have any EXPLANATORY value) into the round hole of scientific “assumptions” that bely the scientific method are generalized, exaggerated, and misrepresented. I was not a scientist encountering new information, but a random fuck on the Internet encountering a confusing and unexplained math problem that was far out of context and had about as much to do with the discussion as a hockey puck at a baseball game. No amount of repition of your smug little assertions that I have “proven” something about myself, the scientific community, or anything else will make it valid.

Science, as a whole, does verify its results and makes no assumptions. Individual scientists are limited in the extent to which they can do this. My statement is about scientists, not science.

But even trust in the scientific community is way different from faith, knowing (as scientists do) the rigor that must go into publishing an article. Individual scientists have a good reason to put their trust in the peers, but are not absolutist and unwilling to reconsider this should certain members of the community be shown to fail. In fact, they eagerly monitor one another for good methodology and intellectual honesty.

Are you referring to the arguments posted here, or the arguments for/against evolution?

The context was clear. I was referring to the many, many, many posts on this board, in this thread, that explained in a myriad of ways three basic points.

• a scientific theory is in no way like a religious faith. Scientists will, despite your insistence, consider new information and revise or even abandoned their theories if necessary.
• a belief based on available information does not need to be comprehensively informed to be sound.

“We” are only “more scientific” if we don’t prejudge the information, considering each new piece of information on its own merits. Would you disagree with that?

I believe there are over a million people in the Nashville metro. I do not need to name them or admit that this is “faith.” It is based on trust in the methodology that gives me that figure and the trust in the reporters who convey the information. My trust in those methods and those reporters are not faith-like, since even without exact knowledge of the methods, and the names and histories of the reporters, I have confidence in the system that regulates accuracy and honesty in the collection and reporting of data. Yes, there is trust and confidence involved. But that is a tentative belief, not a dogmatic belief. If someone told me that Tennessee had undercounted or overcounted its population, I would not insist it was a lie. However, if somebody said there was no such thing as Nashville, I would raise an eyebrow. I’m here now, and I know it to exist. So yes, I would “assume” and “prejudge” that argument only because I already have information enough to know Nashville exists. None of your assertions really stand up to careful reflection.

We have, I think, exhausted the possibilities for this conversation. I think you’ll enjoy the board, and will fare well. Just please, never single me out as an example of anything ever again, or I’ll meet you in the pit with gloves on.

[tnetennba]

[QUOTE=cricetus]
It’s a road you’ve yet to drive. You’ve taken a number of side paths, but have not yet consented that “trust in the scientific community” is quite different from faith, or the more important point that “a tentative scientific position” is way, way different from faith because scientiests will, if necessary, revise their theories if new information.

Your depsarate, unsportsmanlike attempts to hammer the square peg of my not getting your (poorly phrased and inaccurately rendered) calculus (your cite, I repeat, didn’t have any EXPLANATORY value) into the round hole of scientific “assumptions” that bely the scientific method are generalized, exaggerated, and misrepresented. I was not a scientist encountering new information, but a random fuck on the Internet encountering a confusing and unexplained math problem that was far out of context and had about as much to do with the discussion as a hockey puck at a baseball game. No amount of repition of your smug little assertions that I have “proven” something about myself, the scientific community, or anything else will make it valid.

But even trust in the scientific community is way different from faith, knowing (as scientists do) the rigor that must go into publishing an article. Individual scientists have a good reason to put their trust in the peers, but are not absolutist and unwilling to reconsider this should certain members of the community be shown to fail. In fact, they eagerly monitor one another for good methodology and intellectual honesty.
Crap. Forgot the third point.

The context was clear. I was referring to the many, many, many posts on this board, in this thread, that explained in a myriad of ways three basic points.

• a scientific theory is in no way like a religious faith. Scientists will, despite your insistence, consider new information and revise or even abandoned their theories if necessary.
• a belief based on available information does not need to be comprehensively informed to be sound.
• it is neither necessary nor possible to disprove all contary arguments for a belief to be sound.

[g_under_p]

I recanted on the use of the word “faith” a long time ago. If you want to keep focusing in on the misuse of that one word you are free to do so. It won’t make the fact you are missing the point any less.

Originally by cricetus
I was not a scientist encountering new information, but a random fuck on the Internet encountering a confusing and unexplained math problem that was far out of context and had about as much to do with the discussion as a hockey puck at a baseball game.

As much as you want to believe it was badly explained, it wasn’t. Just because you lacked the tools to understand it didn’t make the explanation bad. It made the explanation bad TO YOU, because you lack the knowledge to understand the explanation.

What does the population Nashville have to do with a discussion of scientific principles? Talking about a census and geography question has about as much to do with this discussion as a puck at a baseball game.

And if you don’t know why I posted THAT statement, you haven’t been paying attention.

Originally by cricetus
However, if somebody said there was no such thing as Nashville, I would raise an eyebrow. I’m here now, and I know it to exist. So yes, I would “assume” and “prejudge” that argument only because I already have information enough to know Nashville exists.

And you would have excellent reason to prejudge that information. In this case, you have the direct converse proof that Nashville does exist. That is a lot different than assuming Nashville must exist because you’ve seen places with large buildings and lots of people but none actually called “Nashville”.

[tnetennba]

@g_under_p

As much as you want to believe it was badly explained, it wasn’t. Just because you lacked the tools to understand it didn’t make the explanation bad. It made the explanation bad TO YOU, because you lack the knowledge to understand the explanation.

You’re right. It was no poorlyu explained, but unexplained.

What does the population Nashville have to do with a discussion of scientific principles?

It is sometimes helpful to use parallel examples to demonstrate logical fallacies. Such as it is, your mind is among the closedest I’ve met. Your blind faith is in your own rightness. You are, in short, a waste of time to talk to. I’ve talked to walls that showed more progress in shorter time.

[g_under_p]

cricetus - It would take far too much effort to explain to you the myriad of different levels on which you are wrong in even just your last post. But you’ve given me and my friends a whole lot of laughs on this side. Thanks for that.

Given your social and intellectual disabilities, I’ve no doubt you spend LOTS of time talking with walls, to be honest. Of the multitude of things you’ve posted here, that is by far the most believable things you’ve said.

tomndebb - Clearly any further discourse is pointles. Can you please close this?

Thanks, p/g

[tnetennba]

@g_under_p

cricetus - It would take far too much effort to explain to you the myriad of different levels on which you are wrong in even just your last post. But you’ve given me and my friends a whole lot of laughs on this side. Thanks for that.

Given your social and intellectual disabilities, I’ve no doubt you spend LOTS of time talking with walls, to be honest. Of the multitude of things you’ve posted here, that is by far the most believable things you’ve said.

tomndebb - Clearly any further discourse is pointles. Can you please close this?

Thanks, p/g

“Close the thread! Quick! I got the last word in!”

[tomndebb]

It has been a while since I have seen quite so many posters talking across each other while ignoring the the persons with whom they disagreed.

I want the bunch of you to take deep breaths before you come back to GD for any reason.

Yeeeesh, Closed.

[ /Moderator Mode ]