Creationists: How do you test for "truth"?

[Polymath257]

All right, let's begin with Hempel's Paradox. Imagine that I wish to prove that all ravens are black. So I set out in the world and find a green apple, a red straw, a white car, a brown leaf, an orange orange, a yellow banana, and a purple flower. I conclude from the evidence that it is very likely that all ravens are black because I reason as follows: "Any one of those non-black things could have been a raven, yet none of them were. Therefore, the evidence strongly indicates that all ravens are black." Question: Do you agree with the conclusion? Why or why not?

No. Since the number of non-ravens is so large, the Bayesian estimate for the number of non-black ravens is only affected by a small amount when a non-raven is observed. But the corresponding change when a black raven is observed is much larger.

So, while observing non-black non-ravens does support the proposition that all ravens are black, it does NOT do so to a large extent. If the nunber of non-ravens was small, it would have a larger effect.

The Big Bang theory claims that the universe began in a colossal explosion some 14 billion years ago. If that is so, there should be no structures in the galaxy that are older than 14 billion years. The Sloan Great Wall, however, would require 100 billion years to form. Accordingly, the Big Bang theory is false through an application of modus tollens..

Except that this wall is not a single structure, but is the chance alignment of three substructures. That negates your timing estimate.

I don't verify things. That's your game. I simply pointed out that verificationism is impossible.

The premises you present refute your claim. If we claim that 2+2 = 4 and then put together two apples and two apples and find that there are 4, then we find that math has made a true statement about reality.

No, you showed that the abstract model of addition applies in one situation. There are many other situations where this naive application of the abstract model will fail. For example, adding two gallons of water to two gallons of ethyl alcohol will NOT give a total of 4 gallons of liquid. The naive model fails.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, you did say something like that before, but I assumed that it was a typo. Surely you meant to say: "Neither science nor I assumes evolution occurs."

True, still stands,

Ahh, but you do.

Ahh!! but I don't!

What you have failed to understand is the negation test for assumptions. To divorce the argument from content, let's take a simple, sample argument: "John is very tall. He must be good at basketball." This argument assumes that tall people are good at basketball. How can I prove that? I can prove so by negating the assumption. If the assumption is negated, the argument will fail. So the new argument would be: "John is very tall. Tall people are not good at basketball. John must be good at basketball." Thus we can see that the negated assumption destroys the argument. Clearly, the statement "Tall people are good at basketball" is a necessary assumption for the argument.

You fail to understand not only logic, but falsification cannot prove the negative, nor does it try.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

No verified by the facts.

On the contrary, what ifs have a great deal to do with arguments. Gettier cases, for example, are good examples of how what ifs can expand the scope of an argument. Let's imagine, for example, that someone claims that knowledge is justified true belief. A Gettier case might be the following: What if Farmer John goes by the field where his brown cow often grazes. He from a distance, he sees a brown cloth flapping in the wind and falsely believes that it is his cow. He goes home certain that his cow is safely in the field. In reality, the cow is safely in the field, nestled down, out of sight, sleeping. Thus, Farmer John believes that the cow is there, the cow is really there, and the brown cloth that he saw was his justification for his true belief. Does Farmer John actually know that his cow is safely in the field?

Science does not justify true belief. contorted logic on your part and nothing to do with science.

This is such a ridiculous thing to say that it is obvious that you completely misunderstood the argument. The argument has nothing to do with the speed of light. Go back and re-read the argument. Then, perhaps you can make an intelligent response.

Your argument has nothing to do with science.

Empiricism and verification work based on repeated predictability and simply it works since the first stone ancestor made the second stone tool, which confirmed predictably how to make stone tools, if what you say is true, computers would not work and airplanes would not fly.

 

[Zosimus]

Not true, your religious agenda it totally without objective evidence to verify your beliefs.

You haven't learned anything, have you?

Let's suppose that we have a belief — a claim, a hypothesis, a theory — and you wish to use evidence to verify your beliefs. Exactly how do you propose to do so?

Your theory (T) predicts certain observations (O).
You make those observations (O).
Then you conclude that your theory is true.

In other words:

T => O
O
Therefore T

Unfortunately, this is a classic example of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy. Nothing has been proved, verified, or anything else!

Why is this fallacious? Let's look at some typical examples:

If Bill Gates is the King of England, he will be very rich.
Bill Gates is very rich.
So he must be the King of England!

Really?

If my magic talisman keeps the flu at bay, I won't have the flu.
I don't have the flu.
So my magic talisman keeps the flu at bay.

Really?

 

[shunyadragon]

You haven't learned anything, have you?

I learn from science, and not your voodoo religion

Let's suppose that we have a belief — a claim, a hypothesis, a theory — and you wish to use evidence to verify your beliefs. Exactly how do you propose to do so?

Your theory (T) predicts certain observations (O).
You make those observations (O).
[The observation confirm the prediction of the theory and hypothesis.]
[further research with observations further confirms the hypothesis, and not of the observations have found the hypothesis false]
[The hypothesis is found to be verified subject to further observations and research]

Then you conclude that your theory is true.

Science does not conclude theories and hypothesis as proven nor true. They are falsified by scientific methods and subject further confirmation and verification by repeated objective observations of evidence.

Unfortunately, this is a classic example of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy. Nothing has been proved, verified, or anything else!

Incomplete and terribly bogus simplisic, see bold.

Why is this fallacious? Let's look at some typical examples:

If Bill Gates is the King of England, he will be very rich.
Bill Gates is very rich.
So he must be the King of England!

Really?

All ready demonstrated that this contorted fallacious logic has nothing to do with science.

If my magic talisman keeps the flu at bay, I won't have the flu.
I don't have the flu.
So my magic talisman keeps the flu at bay.

Really?

Really? another bogus contorted argument, The effects of a magic talisman cannot be falsified by predictable results over time. Making stone tools by Stone Age humans can. We can empirically verify the same results Stone Age humans did in making stone tools today. We cannot do that for magic talisman.

 

[Zosimus]

No. Since the number of non-ravens is so large, the Bayesian estimate for the number of non-black ravens is only affected by a small amount when a non-raven is observed. But the corresponding change when a black raven is observed is much larger.

So, while observing non-black non-ravens does support the proposition that all ravens are black, it does NOT do so to a large extent. If the nunber of non-ravens was small, it would have a larger effect.

Ahh, so you accept Hempel's paradox. That's nice.

Well, let's use Hempel's Paradox to test whether the Queen of England exists. I, for example, have met thousands of people in my life. Those around me have similarly met thousands more. While there must certainly be some overlap, there must also be a good deal of non-overlap. So we have thousands and thousands of data points of people who do exist but are not the Queen of England. Would you say that is convincing evidence that the Queen of England does not exist? I imagine that you will say no. After all, there are some 7 billion people on Earth, and the chances of me running into the Queen of England is comparatively small.

Yet, atheists are fond of saying that since they have never run into God, he cannot exist. However, let's consider the number of beings in the universe. We don't know an exact number, but it must surely be at least 7 billion beings, even if we are entirely alone in the universe. So even if an atheist met a new being every second of his life for 90 years, he still would have less than a 1 % chance of running across a being known as God. Even that is assuming that he would recognize God if he bumped into him on the subway.

Except that this wall is not a single structure, but is the chance alignment of three substructures. That negates your timing estimate.

Not so. In fact, the Sloan Great Wall isn't even the largest structure in the galaxy. The Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall is the largest known object in the universe. Doubtless we will find even larger structures in the future. In fact, the wall is so big that Dr. Jon Hakkila, an astrophysics professor and one of the discoverers of the Her-CrB Great Wall is quoted as saying: "The Her-CrB GW is larger than the theoretical upper limit on how big universal structures can be. Thus, it is a conundrum: it shouldn't exist but apparently does."

How like a scientist: They claim to believe in the evidence of their eyes, but as soon as what they see contradicts their preconceived notion of how things are, they deny reality. Typical.

No, you showed that the abstract model of addition applies in one situation. There are many other situations where this naive application of the abstract model will fail. For example, adding two gallons of water to two gallons of ethyl alcohol will NOT give a total of 4 gallons of liquid. The naive model fails.

No, this is because you are not measuring correctly. Or do you propose that adding two pounds of water to two pounds of ethyl alcohol will not result in four pounds of liquid?

 

[Polymath257]

You haven't learned anything, have you?

Let's suppose that we have a belief — a claim, a hypothesis, a theory — and you wish to use evidence to verify your beliefs. Exactly how do you propose to do so?

Your theory (T) predicts certain observations (O).
You make those observations (O).
Then you conclude that your theory is true.

In other words:

T => O
O
Therefore T

Unfortunately, this is a classic example of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy. Nothing has been proved, verified, or anything else!

Why is this fallacious? Let's look at some typical examples:

If Bill Gates is the King of England, he will be very rich.
Bill Gates is very rich.
So he must be the King of England!

Really?

If my magic talisman keeps the flu at bay, I won't have the flu.
I don't have the flu.
So my magic talisman keeps the flu at bay.

Really?

And this has been responded to. Again, the point is that there are several competing explanations, each of which gives a different prediction. The one that makes the correct prediction *isn't* taken as true, but merely more accurate. It is still subject to further testing and challenge from other hypotheses. And not just any other hypotheses, but ones that are directly challenging the assumptions of T.

And in this, a Bayesian analysis does, in fact, increase the confidence one should put in T. It doesn't *prove* T (it only proves O), but it does give one more confidence in T.

Again, if you want proof, go into math or alcohol.

 

[Zosimus]

Ahh!! but I don't!

Yes, you do rely on the Bible. You see, for you, the Bible is the ultimate straw man argument. Any time someone shows up with a real argument, you dismiss it claiming that the person is just pretending to have a good argument. In reality, the person is secretly a Bible-thumping Christian pretending to disagree with you. It's all so convenient.

You fail to understand not only logic, but falsification cannot prove the negative, nor does it try.

This argument, if it can be called that, is nonsensical. It does not address my argument in any way. It is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It contains no premises. It is just a collection of unsupported claims.

No verified by the facts.

Exactly. Not verified by the facts.

Science does not justify true belief. contorted logic on your part and nothing to do with science.

I agree completely! Science does not justify any kind of belief. It is entirely incapable of providing any kind of justification!

Your argument has nothing to do with science.

No, my argument is designed to try to teach you the basics of logic. Or you could simply confess that you completely disagree with all forms of logic. I think that would be easier for both of us.

Empiricism and verification work based on repeated predictability and simply it works since the first stone ancestor made the second stone tool, which confirmed predictably how to make stone tools, if what you say is true, computers would not work and airplanes would not fly.

That's a nice claim, but you haven't verified it empirically. Surely you must have at least heard of the problem of induction?

 

[Zosimus]

And this has been responded to. Again, the point is that there are several competing explanations, each of which gives a different prediction. The one that makes the correct prediction *isn't* taken as true, but merely more accurate. It is still subject to further testing and challenge from other hypotheses. And not just any other hypotheses, but ones that are directly challenging the assumptions of T.

This simplistic explanation completely ignores the problem of underdetermination in scientific theory. For any set of data points, an infinite number of graphs can be created that define those data points.

And in this, a Bayesian analysis does, in fact, increase the confidence one should put in T. It doesn't *prove* T (it only proves O), but it does give one more confidence in T.

I seriously doubt that, but I'm willing to entertain your argument. Provide some sort of an example, complete with math. Show your work.

 

[Polymath257]

Ahh, so you accept Hempel's paradox. That's nice.

Well, let's use Hempel's Paradox to test whether the Queen of England exists. I, for example, have met thousands of people in my life. Those around me have similarly met thousands more. While there must certainly be some overlap, there must also be a good deal of non-overlap. So we have thousands and thousands of data points of people who do exist but are not the Queen of England. Would you say that is convincing evidence that the Queen of England does not exist? I imagine that you will say no. After all, there are some 7 billion people on Earth, and the chances of me running into the Queen of England is comparatively small.

And a Bayesian analysis would confirm this. The large number of non-queens means that meeting a non-queen doesn't affect the probability of a queen existing by much.

Yet, atheists are fond of saying that since they have never run into God, he cannot exist. However, let's consider the number of beings in the universe. We don't know an exact number, but it must surely be at least 7 billion beings, even if we are entirely alone in the universe. So even if an atheist met a new being every second of his life for 90 years, he still would have less than a 1 % chance of running across a being known as God. Even that is assuming that he would recognize God if he bumped into him on the subway.

Ah, bu there is a clear difference here. I can verify that there is not an elephant in my room by simply looking in my room. If an elephant exited there, it *would* be detectable. We are not claiming that there isn't a very powerful being on a distant planet we haven't visited. We are saying that the evidence we have right now isn't sufficient to reach the conclusion that a God exists.

Part of the issue is your incorrect identification of atheism as 'belief there is no God' instead of the correct 'lack of belief in a God'.

Not so. In fact, the Sloan Great Wall isn't even the largest structure in the galaxy. The Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall is the largest known object in the universe. Doubtless we will find even larger structures in the future. In fact, the wall is so big that Dr. Jon Hakkila, an astrophysics professor and one of the discoverers of the Her-CrB Great Wall is quoted as saying: "The Her-CrB GW is larger than the theoretical upper limit on how big universal structures can be. Thus, it is a conundrum: it shouldn't exist but apparently does."

How like a scientist: They claim to believe in the evidence of their eyes, but as soon as what they see contradicts their preconceived notion of how things are, they deny reality. Typical.

No, we look for alternative explanations all around. But because of the degree to which the BB description works in other situations, it is not one we are willing to give up easily. So, we look for alternate explanations of the phenomena you have pointed out to see if those are 1) possible, and 2) testable, and 3) give better insight into what is going on.

Until we *do* understand, though, the modus tollens isn't applicable. What we have is a situation we don't fully understand. That is quite different than an actual contradiction.

No, this is because you are not measuring correctly. Or do you propose that adding two pounds of water to two pounds of ethyl alcohol will not result in four pounds of liquid?

That is not what I said. I said that adding two *gallons* of water to two *gallons* of alcohol does not lead to four *gallons* of liquid.

By changing this to pounds, you are relying on the conservation of mass, which is an observational matter. It isn't always correct, but unless nuclear reactions are relevant, it works. There is no 'conservation of volume'.

 

[Polymath257]

This simplistic explanation completely ignores the problem of underdetermination in scientific theory. For any set of data points, an infinite number of graphs can be created that define those data points.

Correct, which is why we require the possible explanations to be testable. There is also a preference for simper testable explanations over more complex ones.

I seriously doubt that, but I'm willing to entertain your argument. Provide some sort of an example, complete with math. Show your work.

it is very similar to the math involved in the analysis of Hempel's paradox. Again, the small number of testable theories is relevant.

 

[Zosimus]

I learn from science, and not your voodoo religion

I'm not an adherent of voodoo. Why do you claim that I am? Since you're so enamored of verificationism, please provide verification of my belief in voodoo.

Science does not conclude theories and hypothesis as proven nor true. They are falsified by scientific methods and subject further confirmation and verification by repeated objective observations of evidence.

You've finally said something I agree with! Yes, that's right. Science doesn't conclude that theories (such as the theory of evolution) are true. A theory is just a theory. Confirmations don't count. Verification is nonsense.

Incomplete and terribly bogus simplisic, see bold.

Yes, I speak to you on a simple level because you seem unable to grasp more complicated concepts.

All ready demonstrated that this contorted fallacious logic has nothing to do with science.

Again, we agree. Logic has nothing to do with science.

Really? another bogus contorted argument, The effects of a magic talisman cannot be falsified by predictable results over time. Making stone tools by Stone Age humans can.

Really? Very well, tell me how you can falsify stone tools by Stone Age humans. This should be interesting.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I agree completely! Science does not justify any kind of belief. It is entirely incapable of providing any kind of justification!

... He says, typing at a computer.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, you do rely on the Bible. You see, for you, the Bible is the ultimate straw man argument. Any time someone shows up with a real argument, you dismiss it claiming that the person is just pretending to have a good argument. In reality, the person is secretly a Bible-thumping Christian pretending to disagree with you. It's all so convenient.

Huh?!?! Someone flew over the cuckoo's nest. Not relevant to point here.

This argument, if it can be called that, is nonsensical. It does not address my argument in any way. It is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It contains no premises. It is just a collection of unsupported claims.


Exactly. Not verified by the facts.


I agree completely! Science does not justify any kind of belief. It is entirely incapable of providing any kind of justification!


No, my argument is designed to try to teach you the basics of logic. Or you could simply confess that you completely disagree with all forms of logic. I think that would be easier for both of us.


That's a nice claim, but you haven't verified it empirically. Surely you must have at least heard of the problem of induction?

phffffffft! Plop!!!

 

[shunyadragon]

Really? Very well, tell me how you can falsify stone tools by Stone Age humans. This should be interesting.

Simply by empirically testing the methods used by Stone Age to verify the predictability of the materials and methods used, and the result; functional Stone Age tools. Stone Age humans empirically found that some stones made better and more functional tools than others. They found flint, nephrite and obsidian predictably verified made the best tools, We can repeat these experiments today with the same predictable verifiable results.

 

[Zosimus]

And a Bayesian analysis would confirm this. The large number of non-queens means that meeting a non-queen doesn't affect the probability of a queen existing by much.

Again, you love invoking Bayesian analysis without actually doing any math.

The first step is to decide upon the a priori chance that the Queen of England exists. How do you do so?
Then you must update your a posteriori chance that the Queen of England exists. How do you do so?
Show your work.

Ah, bu there is a clear difference here. I can verify that there is not an elephant in my room by simply looking in my room. If an elephant exited there, it *would* be detectable. We are not claiming that there isn't a very powerful being on a distant planet we haven't visited. We are saying that the evidence we have right now isn't sufficient to reach the conclusion that a God exists.

I'm sure you're aware that this is not the claim that atheists make. That's the claim that agnostics like me make. Atheists compare God to Santa Claus.

Part of the issue is your incorrect identification of atheism as 'belief there is no God' instead of the correct 'lack of belief in a God'.

No, most of what atheists claim has to do with physicalism. Atheists claim that there are no non-physical things such as spirits, ghosts, God, etc.

No, we look for alternative explanations all around. But because of the degree to which the BB description works in other situations, it is not one we are willing to give up easily. So, we look for alternate explanations of the phenomena you have pointed out to see if those are 1) possible, and 2) testable, and 3) give better insight into what is going on.

Yes, that's called confirmation bias. It's when confirming evidence is given disproportionate weight.

Until we *do* understand, though, the modus tollens isn't applicable. What we have is a situation we don't fully understand. That is quite different than an actual contradiction.

No, it is a modus tollens argument. Your theory has made predictions that do not hold true in the real world. This implies that your theory is wrong.

That is not what I said. I said that adding two *gallons* of water to two *gallons* of alcohol does not lead to four *gallons* of liquid.

Yes, I can read you know. I simply pointed out that you misapplied the principle at work. It's like saying: If you put a man and a woman together, you often get a baby so 1+1 can equal 3.

 

[Zosimus]

Correct, which is why we require the possible explanations to be testable. There is also a preference for simper testable explanations over more complex ones.

Yes, I'm aware. However, how have you tested the theory that simpler testable explanations are superior to more complex testable explanations?

Karl Popper, by the way, did not agree with your point of view. He felt that more restrictive theories were better than merely simpler ones because they were more testable and thus more predictive and more open to falsification.

it is very similar to the math involved in the analysis of Hempel's paradox. Again, the small number of testable theories is relevant.

A math that seems to be beyond your ken. And again, the number of testable theories is infinite.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm sure you're aware that this is not the claim that atheists make. That's the claim that agnostics like me make. Atheists compare God to Santa Claus.

Because they are equivalent. At least in terms of objective verifiability.

 

[Zosimus]

Huh?!?! Someone flew over the cuckoo's nest. Not relevant to point here.

phffffffft! Plop!!!

I read your post with an eye to refuting any logical arguments contained therein. Unfortunately, there were none to refute.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, most of what atheists claim has to do with physicalism. Atheists claim that there are no non-physical things such as spirits, ghosts, God, etc.

False. Atheism and physicalism are not the same thing, nor are they exclusively related.

 

[Zosimus]

Simply by empirically testing the methods used by Stone Age to verify the predictability of the materials and methods used, and the result; functional Stone Age tools. Stone Age humans empirically found that some stones made better and more functional tools than others. They found flint, nephrite and obsidian predictably verified made the best tools, We can repeat these experiments today with the same predictable verifiable results.

Your answer is nonsensical. The question was: How can you falsify stone age tools? You speak of empirically testing the methods used by Stone Age. Ages do not have methods. Ages do not take action.

You then wanted to verify the predictability of the materials and methods used. Materials do not have predictability.

You then say that Stone Age humans found that some stones made better and more functional tools than others. This is speculation. You were not there. The only thing you know is that the artifacts you have found are made of stone. It is entirely possible that other tools were used made of wood or other decomposable material that did not survive the passage of time. This is called survival bias.

You then speculate that flint, nephrite, and obsidian made the best tools. However, this speculation, even if true, would never falsify stone age tools. You claim that you can repeat these experiments today with verifiable results. This claim, even if true, would never falsify stone age tools.