Is providing data to creationists a waste of time?

[sayak83]

The problem is that at some point in the future, assuming the Farge/Seutral theory is correct, everything will have a different charge than it has now.

It appears that it is you who have not read your own link. The link says explicitly that color (or here charge) of objects are NOT changing. The words grue (or farge) is simply referencing objects of DIFFERENT color(or charge) before time t' and after time t'. The problem here is not some metaphysical discontinuity, but the fact that if we naively use time dependent property labels X for induction arguments where time independence is assumed we are going to get errors. Kind of obvious.

 

[sayak83]

As you well know, there is no way to determine with a surety that any item really is healthy food. For all you know, that hamburger you ate quite safely yesterday was poisoned by your wife just this morning. So what is the point of your argument?

Thus it is proved that demands of certainty is itself illogical.
So given that it has been established that certainties are impossible in things as simple and vital as deciding what to eat, what are the justifications that guides me to choose the bottle of water as a drink over a bottle of bleach and how are those justifications immune to the logical objections you espoused here..?

Not all statistics is Bayesian.

Frequents statistics or objective probability have even more severe objections.

No, you have done nothing of the sort. You have merely demonstrated the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Hiding your inability to reply behind insults are the symptoms of desperation.

 

[sayak83]

So your argument is that if science works then we will see technical progress.
We see technical progress.
So science must work.

This is a classic example of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy.

We could just as easily reframe the entire thing in a pro-Christian light.

If God is preparing to preach his gospel to all nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples, then he will be inspiring technological progress to make that possible.
Technological progress sufficient to enable worldwide communication is happening.
Therefore, God is preparing to preach his gospel to all nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples.

Whoop-ee-dee-doo! Anyone can commit logical fallacies and prove nonsensical things!

Obviously the popularity of Christianity IS evidence for truth of Christianity. So is popularity of science, Buddhism, Islam etc. But Christianity works only if people get to live with God at end time, while science works if planes and computers and cars work. Evidence of X working is a stronger evidence for X than evidence for people widely believing that it will work in future.
Please provide your alternative hypothesis of why technology works if scientific results do not correspond to experienced reality. Even if God has arranged reality such that this is happening, the conclusion that scientific results correspond to experienced reality and hence technology works remain valid.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The same thing could be said of natural selection. Whatever happens the theory is confirmed.

Natural selection is not a theory. It is a self-evident fact. Nature treats different entities differentially.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

As you well know, there is no way to determine with a surety that any item really is healthy food. For all you know, that hamburger you ate quite safely yesterday was poisoned by your wife just this morning. So what is the point of your argument?

Still? Was I not clear enough?

 

[Zosimus]

You can also measure mass via the inertia. That is independent of the gravitational method. That the two methods give the same rsult is a fundamental aspect of the universe.

No, that the two methods have so far appeared to have given the same result is remarkable.

It wasn't a gaffe. THAT is the point. You made a claim that Newton's description of the force of gravity was a 'law' as opposed to a theory, yet Einstein's description of gravity was a 'theory' instead of a 'law'. I am merely pointing out that *both* have exactly the same status. The only thing separating the 'law' and the 'theory' is a terminological caution for the later description.

Newton's Law of Gravity is different from Einstein's theory. Newton never attempted to explain why gravity occurred. In fact, he said that he could not imagine how such a force could propagate through a vacuum and declined to speculate on the matter. In fact Newton said:

I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.

Note also that Newton did not call what he did "science" but rather "experimental philosophy." Newton was not a scientist. In fact, the word hadn't even been coined when he was alive. He was a natural philosopher.

 

[Zosimus]

Actually, what he writes is far more informed and substantial than what you wrote. You're also deliberately omitting the following paragraph, in which he explains the aspects of evolutionary theory which WOULD be affected (if not outright falsified) by a precambrian rabbit:

Affected is very different from falsified. Running into an alien species with its own set of religions would definitely affect Christianity, for example.

"... The theoretical models are intended to describe what various evolutionary mechanisms can do in principle. Claims of that kind are usually tested via mathematical analysis and computer simulation. Small-scale evolution can also be directly observed in the lab, especially in bacteria and fruit flies, and the Precambrian rabbit would not affect those results.
But a Precambrian rabbit fossil would show that somewhere in the package of central claims found in evolutionary biology textbooks, there are some serious errors.

Just as finding the skeleton of a crucified Jewish man in a tomb with an inscription "Jesus of Nazareth, alleged King of the Jews" would imply that somewhere in the central claims of Christianity there are some serious errors. Nevertheless, we do not pretend that Christianity is science.

These would at least include errors about the overall history of life, about the kinds of processes through which a rabbit-like organism could evolve, and about the "family tree" of species on earth. The challenge would be to work out where the errors lie, and that would require separating out and independently reassessing each of the ideas which make up the package. This reassessment could, in principle, result in the discarding of very basic evolutionary beliefs - like the idea that humans evolved from non-humans."

Would this discovery result in a revision of the idea that the frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation? Would it result in a revision of the idea that natural selection plays an important role in determining which species pass on these alleles? I think not.

In other words, it wouldn't falsify that which we have already directly tested and observed, but would basically reverse everything we thought we knew about how organisms evolve (and if they do at all) and effectively cast serious doubt on common descent.

Well, there's already serious doubt on common descent. In short, nothing would change.

 

[Zosimus]

I don't care what it's called. You asked why voodoo and astrology aren't correct, and my answer to your question stands.....they don't work.

Neither does science. Thank you. Drive through.

Or are you the kind of person who would demand that we continue to use things that we know don't work?

No, I'm the kind that suggests that you abandon the things that don't.

You need to make up your mind. When Sayak argues for evolutionary theory by describing how some of its testable predictions have been confirmed, you complain that it's the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Yet here you are now criticizing evolutionary theory for allegedly not making testable predictions.

You really have no clue, do you? The point of science, properly understood, is not to confirm things. It's to falsify bad theories. A theory that makes no testable predictions can never be falsified. That's why religion, for example, is not a subject for scientific study. No observation could ever be made that could prove that God didn't exist. That doesn't mean that God doesn't exist or that we should assume that. It just means that God is not a subject for scientific study. Seriously, do us all a favor and take a basic philosophy of science course.

 

[Zosimus]

That's definitely the most famous example, but there are many, many others. Of course the most obvious would be if we saw populations generate new traits or species by non-evolutionary means. But to date, all we've ever seen are traits coming about via evolution.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Biological evolution is merely the theory that the frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation. That's all it is. Neo-Darwinism includes other ideas such as natural selection and common descent. Together all these ideas form what is known as the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, which is an attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics, which says that species never pass certain limits, with Darwinism, which claims that species do.

 

[Zosimus]

Natural selection is not a theory. It is a self-evident fact. Nature treats different entities differentially.

No, natural selection is not a fact. It's a tautology. In its simplest form, the theory of natural selection says that the animals that reproduce are the animals that reproduce. Then you all swoon as though something amazing was said.

Color me unimpressed.

 

[Zosimus]

Still? Was I not clear enough?

Yes, you're quite clear. You're making a stupid argument. You're like a Christian saying, "Okay. How would you use science to determine who does and doesn't go to heaven?" The assumption is that if science cannot resolve this matter to his satisfaction, he will claim that you must therefore accept the Bible as the means for doing so.

This is called the argument from ignorance logical fallacy.

 

[Zosimus]

It appears that it is you who have not read your own link. The link says explicitly that color (or here charge) of objects are NOT changing. The words grue (or farge) is simply referencing objects of DIFFERENT color(or charge) before time t' and after time t'. The problem here is not some metaphysical discontinuity, but the fact that if we naively use time dependent property labels X for induction arguments where time independence is assumed we are going to get errors. Kind of obvious.

No, you have no idea what you're talking about.

From grue

]Typically the scientist will not be considering a single hypothesis but will be looking for which hypothesis is "best confirmed" by the available evidence. The grue paradox shows us, that if we eliminate induction (as the HD-ist hoped to do) as a means of justification, for every hypothesis that is confirmed by some body of evidence, there are an infinite number of alternative hypotheses inconsistent with the first which are all equally well confirmed by that same evidence. Thus, based on the empirical evidence there is no justification for regarding the evidence as ever confirming one hypothesis more than another one!

That's the point! The grue paradox shows that there's no way to determine which of the infinite number of competing theories is the correct one until it's too late. Yes, we will know whether the emeralds are grue or green at some future point in time when the predictions made by grue and those made by green diverge. Until then, however, we have no way of using empirical data to determine which of the theories is correct.

Now of course no one believes that emeralds are grue. Science believes that the color of things is not time dependent. Why? Because such a thing has never been observed in the past. In short, science assumes that the past is a good guide to the future but this assumption cannot be justified.

That's the point. So before you shoot your mouth off, try understanding the argument.

P.S. I'm still waiting for you to show how Bayesian epistemology resolves all of this.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Affected is very different from falsified. Running into an alien species with its own set of religions would definitely affect Christianity, for example.

I fail to see how the comparison is relevant.

Just as finding the skeleton of a crucified Jewish man in a tomb with an inscription "Jesus of Nazareth, alleged King of the Jews" would imply that somewhere in the central claims of Christianity there are some serious errors. Nevertheless, we do not pretend that Christianity is science.

Nor should we, because it isn't. Falsifiability is just one thing among many that renders a theory scientifically valid.

Would this discovery result in a revision of the idea that the frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation?

As your quote states, no. It wouldn't suddenly render what we have directly observed and tested to be false. It would, however, render a huge chunk of the theoretical framework that explains how allele frequencies change and how this change resulted in the diversity of life we see now false.

Would it result in a revision of the idea that natural selection plays an important role in determining which species pass on these alleles? I think not.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that evolutionary theory only pertains to a very narrow margin of subjects. Did you read the very quote you just cut and pasted? It clearly states that evolution is a broad subject containing many different areas of information and study. You seem to now be completely dismissing and ignoring the extract that you just agreed with.

Well, there's already serious doubt on common descent.

Not really. Science is pretty unanimous on the subject.

In short, nothing would change.

That's just outright false. This has already been explained to you, and even the extract you quoted from would disagree with you.

 

[Zosimus]

Thus it is proved that demands of certainty is itself illogical.
So given that it has been established that certainties are impossible in things as simple and vital as deciding what to eat, what are the justifications that guides me to choose the bottle of water as a drink over a bottle of bleach and how are those justifications immune to the logical objections you espoused here..?

You are making a ridiculous argument. You are like a person showing someone a sponge and saying, "If this sponge is so wonderful, show me how to use it to drive a nail into the wall."

News flash: Sponges don't do that. That doesn't mean that sponges are not useful. Similarly, logic alone cannot tell you whether pigs fly. It can, however, tell you whether an argument is valid or invalid.

Your argument seems to be that since logic cannot tell us whether pigs can fly, that science should be free to commit logical fallacies willy nilly and no one should be able to call it on them. Well, I beg to differ.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, natural selection is not a fact. It's a tautology. In its simplest form, the theory of natural selection says that the animals that reproduce are the animals that reproduce. Then you all swoon as though something amazing was said.

Color me unimpressed.

You clearly don't understand what natural selection actually means, then. It's not about merely the chance of reproduction, but how differences in chances for reproduction can result in certain allele frequencies dominating others within living populations. It explains how certain features are favoured in given climates and not in others. Your over-simplification of the subject only really indicates your ignorance of it.

 

[Zosimus]

Obviously the popularity of Christianity IS evidence for truth of Christianity. So is popularity of science, Buddhism, Islam etc. But Christianity works only if people get to live with God at end time, while science works if planes and computers and cars work. Evidence of X working is a stronger evidence for X than evidence for people widely believing that it will work in future.
Please provide your alternative hypothesis of why technology works if scientific results do not correspond to experienced reality. Even if God has arranged reality such that this is happening, the conclusion that scientific results correspond to experienced reality and hence technology works remain valid.

More logical fallacies.
Look at your argument.

If science works, then planes and computers will work (If P then Q).
Planes and computers work (Q)
Therefore, science works (P).

This is a textbook example of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy. You may feel better about it all, but nothing has been proved.

If this magic talisman protects me from the evil eye, then I will never feel the effects of the evil eye.
I have never felt the effects of the evil eye.
Therefore, this magic talisman really does protect me from the evil eye.

Are you convinced by the second argument? No? Then why should I be convinced by the first one?

 

[Zosimus]

I fail to see how the comparison is relevant.

If you don't see how the comparison is relevant, then it's obvious that you don't understand the argument.

Let's recap. The argument is that natural selection and/or evolution really is scientific because if someone found a perfectly preserved rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian, evolution would be outright falsified.

I have already shown that this claim is false. So now you are editing the claim to: Natural selection and/or evolution really is scientific because if someone found a perfectly preserved rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian, evolution would be affected.

Fine. Then Christianity is also scientific because if we found an alien race, Christianity would be affected.

Not convinced by my argument? Good! Then you should be able to understand why I'm not convinced by yours.

 

[Zosimus]

You clearly don't understand what natural selection actually means, then. It's not about merely the chance of reproduction, but how differences in chances for reproduction can result in certain allele frequencies dominating others within living populations. It explains how certain features are favoured in given climates and not in others. Your over-simplification of the subject only really indicates your ignorance of it.

Oh really. So now the theory of natural selection is that the alleles that end up dominating others within living populations are the alleles that end up dominating others within living populations. Thank you so much for clearing that up.</sarcasm>

 

[ImmortalFlame]

More logical fallacies.
Look at your argument.

If science works, then planes and computers will work (If P then Q).
Planes and computers work (Q)
Therefore, science works (P).

This is a textbook example of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy. You may feel better about it all, but nothing has been proved.

I don't think you understand how this fallacy actually works. Affirming the consequent is only a fallacy when you fail to demonstrate that P is the only probable cause for Q. When you have a process which necessarily results in an increase of understanding or development of technology, it stands to reason that the technology is a result of that process. Can you name ANOTHER process through which we may have figured out how to make planes and computers?

If this magic talisman protects me from the evil eye, then I will never feel the effects of the evil eye.
I have never felt the effects of the evil eye.
Therefore, this magic talisman really does protect me from the evil eye.

Not the same. The scientific process PRODUCES tangible results.

Are you convinced by the second argument? No? Then why should I be convinced by the first one?

I don't expect you'd be convinced by much, considering how poorly you grasp logical fallacies and yet feel the need to evoke them.

This seems to be getting more common around here recently...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you don't see how the comparison is relevant, then it's obvious that you don't understand the argument.

Or it could be that the comparison is irrelevant.

Let's recap. The argument is that natural selection and/or evolution really is scientific because if someone found a perfectly preserved rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian, evolution would be outright falsified.

I have already shown that this claim is false.

No, you haven't. You presented a quote from a science philosopher who stated that it wouldn't falsify what we have already observed and tested, but it would falsify much of the theoretical framework to explain common descent and, possibly, falsify common descent itself.

So now you are editing the claim to: Natural selection and/or evolution really is scientific because if someone found a perfectly preserved rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian, evolution would be affected.

This is a straw-man. I never made any such argument, I simply pointed out that your quotation was incomplete and misrepresentative.

Fine. Then Christianity is also scientific because if we found an alien race, Christianity would be affected.

Which is a silly argument to make. Nobody has claimed that falsifiability is the ONLY hallmark of a scientific theory or hypothesis.

Not convinced by my argument? Good! Then you should be able to understand why I'm not convinced by yours.

Since it's an argument I never made, you're just babbling.