Evolution vs Intelligent design/creationism

[Dan From Smithville]

LOL "Serious people in the field". 'Nuff said.

I think Randi is a serious challenge to people that claim a lot of things that aren't falsifiable.

 

[George-ananda]

The problem is that beliefs aren't falsifiable.

I guess I need to ask why you call that a 'problem'.


This is not physical science. My only interest is to study all the evidence and argumentations and form my own beliefs as to what is the most reasonable understanding. That objective consideration creates my personal worldview. I'll be happy to discuss my worldview with others but I am not claiming anything falsifiable by the scientific method. I'm fine with that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess I need to ask why you call that a 'problem'.


This is not physical science. My only interest is to study all the evidence and argumentations and form my own beliefs as to what is the most reasonable understanding. That objective consideration creates my personal worldview. I'll be happy to discuss my worldview with others but I am not claiming anything falsifiable by the scientific method. I'm fine with that.

Because just based on faith and emotions people can believe anything. It is not a "road to truth".

 

[George-ananda]

Because just based on faith and emotions people can believe anything. It is not a "road to truth".

What part of 'objective consideration of all the evidence and argumentation' gets translated to 'faith and emotions'. They almost sound like opposite processes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What part of 'objective consideration of all the evidence and argumentation' gets translated to 'faith and emotions'. They almost sound like opposite processes.

What "evidence"? There is a logical way to approach the concept of evidence. You have yet to provide any. You could still study this using the scientific method. Even though no conventional means of observation may exist one can still construct a testable hypothesis and test it. If the tests confirm your findings (and that would not be proof positive that you were right, but it would be helpful. And then you would have evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I guess I need to ask why you call that a 'problem'.


This is not physical science. My only interest is to study all the evidence and argumentations and form my own beliefs as to what is the most reasonable understanding. That objective consideration creates my personal worldview. I'll be happy to discuss my worldview with others but I am not claiming anything falsifiable by the scientific method. I'm fine with that.

It's not my problem. Or at least not mine alone. It is the problem of anyone claiming what they believe is a verified fact or some kind of absolute. If there is physical evidence for it, then it can be studied, hypotheses can be formulated. Studies and experiments can be devised. Observations can be made. Not always simple, but the possibility of doing this is still important. It is relatively easy to set up an experiment about some aspect of insect biology, but not so easy to set up a study of alien visitations when you have only eye witness testimony and no way to determine where one might occur.

I haven't seen any convincing evidence supporting some of the things you claim to have experienced. I can't say it isn't real, but I would need very robust evidence to consider NDE's or clairvoyance as something more than belief. Psy powers are another story, but like alien visitors, it isn't easy to study.

 

[George-ananda]

It's not my problem. Or at least not mine alone. It is the problem of anyone claiming what they believe is a verified fact or some kind of absolute.

So then I don't have a problem because I am not claiming any verifiable facts or some king of absolute. I am simply telling people what I believe after decades of objective consideration. Do you see the difference?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So then I don't have a problem because I am not claiming any verifiable facts or some king of absolute. I am simply telling people what I believe after decades of objective consideration. Do you see the difference?

You think what you believe is real. A religion.

 

[George-ananda]

You think what you believe is real. A religion.

Sure, and the reason I believe in my case is evidence and not faith. I have seen and heard from others 10 times enough to make me a believer in the paranormal based on evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, and the reason I believe in my case is evidence and not faith. I have seen and heard from others 10 times enough to make me a believer in the paranormal based on evidence.

No, just faith. You have not brought up any valid evidence yet. Let's discuss the nature of evidence. Most people simply do not understand the concept.

 

[George-ananda]

No, just faith. You have not brought up any valid evidence yet. Let's discuss the nature of evidence. Most people simply do not understand the concept.

And I think the not understanding evidence crowd includes you. Many people confuse the words evidence with 'proof'.

EVIDENCE
NOUN

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

Evidence in the way I am using the word includes everything pertinent to indicating whether the proposition is valid.

For example: Two people see an alleged paranormal event. That is evidence (NOT proof) to consider for the existence of the paranormal.

That is how common human reasoning works. You listen to everything from all sides related to a subject and form a belief.

I am doing common sense reasoning here, not physical science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I think the not understanding evidence crowd includes you. Many people confuse the words evidence with 'proof'.

EVIDENCE
NOUN

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

Evidence in the way I am using the word includes everything pertinent to indicating whether the proposition is valid.

For example: Two people see an alleged paranormal event. That is evidence (NOT proof) to consider for the existence of the paranormal.

That is how common human reasoning works. You listen to everything from all sides related to a subject and form a belief.

I am doing common sense reasoning here, not physical science.

That is a rather poor definition. Scientific evidence is defined more precisely:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

And no, two people seeing something is just anecdote. It is hardly evidence since it is not reliable. All you have is anecdote, to be reliable evidence it needs to be repeatable.

 

[George-ananda]

That is a rather poor definition. Scientific evidence is defined more precisely:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

And no, two people seeing something is just anecdote. It is hardly evidence since it is not reliable. All you have is anecdote, to be reliable evidence it needs to be repeatable.

Did you miss my last sentence:

I am doing common sense reasoning here, not physical science.

(like how does a jury determine guilt in a murder case? By rational processing of everything relevant to the case pointing for and against guilt; not physical science)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you miss my last sentence:

I am doing common sense reasoning here, not physical science.

(like how does a jury determine guilt in a murder case? By rational processing of everything relevant to the case pointing for and against guilt; not physical science)

"Common sense" is just an excuse to follow one's own prejudices, and we do not need to do physical science to apply the scientific method Hopefully now you realize that you do not have any reliable evidence. What you have is mere anecdote. A concept that is all but worthless when it comes to supporting a concept.

 

[George-ananda]

"Common sense" is just an excuse to follow one's own prejudices, and we do not need to do physical science to apply the scientific method Hopefully now you realize that you do not have any reliable evidence. What you have is mere anecdote. A concept that is all but worthless when it comes to supporting a concept.

so people and juries can not objectively consider all evidence but are just following their prejudices? I have more confidence in human reasoning skills than believing that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so people and juries can not objectively consider all evidence but are just following their prejudices? I have more confidence in human reasoning skills than believing that.

Your "evidence" is so weak that it probably would not be allowed in a criminal trial. Also, eyewitness evidence is the weakest of evidence that one will see in a trial. Eyewitness testimony that is not consistent, and that is what you have, is of no use at all.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

so people and juries can not objectively consider all evidence but are just following their prejudices? I have more confidence in human reasoning skills than believing that.

yes there is a reason that the vast majority of countries with any tradition of fair trials, use citizen juries instead of a panel of 'experts' (government appointed lawyers) to pass judgement on important cases

When determining truth, an unbiased layperson beats a biased expert any day- and the history of science has borne this out also

 

[Subduction Zone]

yes there is a reason that the vast majority of countries with any tradition of fair trials, use citizen juries instead of a panel of 'experts' (government appointed lawyers) to pass judgement on important cases

When determining truth, an unbiased layperson beats a biased expert any day- and the history of science has borne this out also

LOL!! No, citizen juries were simply the best available in the past. Today when juries screw up, and they do quite often, that is what the appeals process is for. Of course in the U.S. if one is lucky enough to get an incompetent jury that declares one "Not Guilty" that person gets off, even if he did the crime. There are countless examples of that in the Old South when white people got off with white citizen juries. We saw the opposite happen in the OJ trial. There is no appeal when that happens.

 

[George-ananda]

Your "evidence" is so weak that it probably would not be allowed in a criminal trial. Also, eyewitness evidence is the weakest of evidence that one will see in a trial. Eyewitness testimony that is not consistent, and that is what you have, is of no use at all.

in the field of my common
sense, what I and others I respect have seen carries serious weight. I also understand nothing is perfect either. That is common sense in my book.

 

[Subduction Zone]

in the field of my common
sense, what I and others I respect have seen carries serious weight. I also understand nothing is perfect either. That is common sense in my book.

Yes, but "common sense" is merely unjustifiable prejudice. It was "common sense" that blacks were less intelligent than whites. It was "common sense" that women could not do math and work in the sciences.