Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[ImmortalFlame]

Wrong. I quote from https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging_the_Question

>Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.

Here's a suggestion. Before you say something stupid, try googling it.

This is LITERALLY what comes up when you Google "begging the question":

"Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself."

In other words, if the claim is supported with evidence it is NOT begging the question, which is exactly what I said. Reading is fundamental, grasshopper.

Your argument is specious. It's like when someone goes to a doctor, and the doctor tells him that he shouldn't smoke, he points out that the doctor has eaten at McDonald's before. So what?

Your argument is that inductive reasoning is not just "flawed", but that it literally CANNOT form the basis of a logical argument. It is more analogous to someone going to the doctor and the doctor tells them "Don't smoke, because smoking even one cigarette leads to immediate death", and the patient points out that doctor smokes fifty a day.

You seem to be a fan of inductive reasoning.

I'm a fan of most forms of reasoning. Inductive is one of them. Without it, we wouldn't be able to function on any level.

How about this: Imagine that I want to prove that black holes do not exist. Saying that black holes do not exist is the same as saying that everything that exists is not a black hole. I then begin to observe reality. I catalog thousands of grains of sand, all of which exist and are not black holes. Then I observe thousands of leaves in the forest, all of which exist, and are not black holes. Then I observe thousands of drops of water, all of which exist and none of which are black holes. I conclude, therefore, that there is overwhelming evidence that black holes don't exist. Is my conclusion valid? Why or why not?

No, because you're attempting to confirm a negative - which is almost always a poor position to start from, and a clear display of poor rationality. If you wish to prove, however, that black holes DO exist, you now have something you can actively work towards through observation. Confirming a negative is almost always impossible, since the only way to conclusively prove something doesn't exist it is to somehow literally analyse everything that exists. The scientific method starts with an assertion that can be falsified and attempts to systematically falsify it and see if it produces testable predictions.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/859415
and http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/flu-statistics

First link requires a login and second link doesn't say a single thing about the efficacy of flu vaccines. Here are the figures according to the CDC, which are wildly different from your own:

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectiveness-studies.htm

You said:

>My logic is "If science can be used to make repeatedly verifiable predictions, and perform acts that clearly require a great deal of information with countless variables in order to achieve,
>then obviously is engaging in more than mere logical fallacies."

I requote: "...obviously is engaging in more than mere logical fallacies."

Who is obviously and why is he (or she) engaging in more than mere logical fallacies? Or did you mean something else?

Or, you could stop being a child.

 

[Zosimus]

Sure it does.

I think it's time to introduce you to Agrippa's Trilemma. A trilemma is like a dilemma, but when you have three unappealing options.

How can you justify something? There are basically three ways.

1. Circular logic.

2. Infinite regress.

3. A priori.

------------------------------------------------------------
Science is circular at best, self-contradicting at worst.

 

[Zosimus]

Spoken like someone who has never done a lick of science in his life. I am a scientist, my science routinely requires art, imagination, engineering, inspiration, design and math.

Oh, I see. Science requires imagination; therefore, imagination is a science. Is that the logic?

Okay. Life requires oxygen. Therefore, oxygen is a life.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think it's time to introduce you to Agrippa's Trilemma. A trilemma is like a dilemma, but when you have three unappealing options.

How can you justify something? There are basically three ways.

1. Circular logic.

2. Infinite regress.

3. A priori.

------------------------------------------------------------
Science is circular at best, self-contradicting at worst.

And I think it's time to introduce you to above-childhood level sophistry. If you actually believed this was true, you can have no basis to justify your belief in anything - including your belief that any justification for beliefs are fallacious.

 

[Sapiens]

I think it's time to introduce you to Agrippa's Trilemma. A trilemma is like a dilemma, but when you have three unappealing options.

How can you justify something? There are basically three ways.

1. Circular logic.

2. Infinite regress.

3. A priori.

------------------------------------------------------------
Science is circular at best, self-contradicting at worst.

Thank you for that lucid explication of your argument methodology. I now understand why science makes not sense to you ... you simply do not understand it at all.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh, I see. Science requires imagination; therefore, imagination is a science. Is that the logic?

Okay. Life requires oxygen. Therefore, oxygen is a life.

So saying "science requires art and imagination" is equal to saying "art and imagination are science"?

Let me ask you a question: when you read a recipe and you see that it "requires salt", do you misread the recipe as saying that salt constitutes the entirety of the dish? I'm not coming to your next barbecue, if that's the case.

 

[Acim]

You do realize that engineering is a science, right?

How so? I'd like to play this one out.

 

[Acim]

Spoken like someone who has never done a lick of science in his life. I am a scientist, my science routinely requires art, imagination, engineering, inspiration, design and math.

Where in the scientific method are these items mentioned or implied?

Couldn't any endeavor be 'applied to science?' Such that religion is under auspices of science because some scientists use it or find it required?

To me, scientists sometimes (or routinely) claim too much about what science is or does. Would be super fun to explore all this in another thread. For now, we'll let this one see how willing people are to say all that they are up to is 'applied science' in the way they practice it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How so? I'd like to play this one out.

engineering
noun
the branch of science and technology concerned with the design, building, and use of engines, machines, and structures.
SOURCE: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=e...ceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=engineering+definition

"the work of designing and creating large structures (such as roads and bridges) or new products or systems by using scientific methods"
SOURCE: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/engineering

"The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such asthe design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures,machine, processes, and systems."
SOURCE: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/engineering

"the art or science of making practical application ofthe knowledge of pure sciences, as physics orchemistry, as in the construction of engines,bridges, buildings, mines, ships, and chemicalplants."
SOURCE: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/engineering


In a very general sense, "engineering" can just be "any systematic way of producing an object, outcome or function", but in regards to the design of the Mars Rover it was most definitely the scientific definition and application of engineering that applied.

 

[Zosimus]

This is LITERALLY what comes up when you Google "begging the question":

"Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself."

No, that's not what comes up. This is what comes up:

In other words, if the claim is supported with evidence it is NOT begging the question, which is exactly what I said. Reading is fundamental, grasshopper.

Evidence cannot support claims.

Your argument is that inductive reasoning is not just "flawed", but that it literally CANNOT form the basis of a logical argument.

That's right. What's the problem?

I'm a fan of most forms of reasoning. Inductive is one of them. Without it, we wouldn't be able to function on any level.

Induction is a fallacious form of reasoning. I'm sure you rely on induction all the time. It leads you into fallacies.

No, because you're attempting to confirm a negative - which is almost always a poor position to start from, and a clear display of poor rationality. If you wish to prove, however, that black holes DO exist, you now have something you can actively work towards through observation. Confirming a negative is almost always impossible, since the only way to conclusively prove something doesn't exist it is to somehow literally analyse everything that exists. The scientific method starts with an assertion that can be falsified and attempts to systematically falsify it and see if it produces testable predictions.

Nitpicking. All right. Let's try an example you cannot nitpick.

I think that all ravens are black, and I want to test this theory. I now make three common sense assumptions.

1. If I find a raven and it's black, then my theory is at least partially confirmed.
2. Equivalent theories are confirmed by the same things (e.g., all ravens are black is confirmed by the same things that confirm black is what all ravens are).
3. The only way to disprove the idea that all ravens are black is to find something that's a raven but isn't black. Therefore, the theory "all ravens are black" is equivalent to "all non-black things are not ravens."

Now I start to observe the world. I see a red chair. It isn't black, and it isn't a raven. So my theory that ravens are black has been confirmed. Similarly, this green apple is more evidence that all ravens are black.

First link requires a login and second link doesn't say a single thing about the efficacy of flu vaccines. Here are the figures according to the CDC, which are wildly different from your own:

The first link does not require a login. The results are right here:

The second link is important because it tells us the a priori chance of getting the flu. Without a flu shot, your chance of getting the flu ranges from 5 to 20 percent. So if we take 20,000 people who have not been innoculated on average 2,500 of them will get influenza. This year the efficacy of the vaccine is supposedly 59 percent. So if those 2,500 people are vaccinated then 1,475 will be spared influenza. So to spare 1,475 people from influenza 20,000 people need to be immunized. That means that 18,525 people will reap no benefit at all from the vaccine. Either they weren't going to get influenza in the first place, or they got the flu despite the innoculation.

Accordingly, we can conclude that 92.6 percent of the people who get a flu vaccine are not benefitted in the slightest. This is the optimistic number. See:
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/201/2/186.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23978527
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/719740

 

[Acim]

engineering
noun
the branch of science and technology concerned with the design, building, and use of engines, machines, and structures.
SOURCE: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=e...ceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=engineering+definition

So, people building religious temples from whatever time period were in fact scientists.

IMO, allegiance to engineering as science (foremost) is a basis for rational belief in intelligent design (not the kind that rests on old school creationism).

"the work of designing and creating large structures (such as roads and bridges) or new products or systems by using scientific methods"

What are these scientific methods?

"The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such asthe design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures,machine, processes, and systems."

SOURCE: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/engineering

"the art or science of making practical application ofthe knowledge of pure sciences, as physics orchemistry, as in the construction of engines,bridges, buildings, mines, ships, and chemicalplants."
SOURCE: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/engineering

None of these explain how science is involved, though clearly imply that science is involved, or magically, at the helm. I honestly can't think of any ideology (including religion) where you couldn't do the same thing. Imply that science is at the helm of all systematic understandings / practices, even while novices and naysayers may lack in those (advanced) understandings.

Even old school creationism would be "science" by this type of logic. Just lacks a coherent understanding (perhaps), but to divorce it from science would seem to be based entirely on partiality when the evidence exists that a structure (or structures) are observable. All of our experience tends to find structures are designed by intelligence with a method in place. Obviously debatable on the last point, but not so much that it ought to be considered a science, since literally everything has science at its helm.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, that's not what comes up. This is what comes up:

Try using google.co.uk

Evidence cannot support claims.

Oh, I get it now! You're utterly irrational!

That's right. What's the problem?

Apparently, your reasoning.

Induction is a fallacious form of reasoning. I'm sure you rely on induction all the time. It leads you into fallacies.

Do you not get the point of the argument? I'll make it more clear for you:

YOU use inductive reasoning CONSTANTLY, EVERY DAY to reach conclusions that are so obvious to you that you take them for granted - to assert that induction isn't in some way reasonable, you must believe that you are basically incapable of doing ANYTHING rational, which makes reading a single thing you write here pointless.

Confirmation bias isn't the same thing as inductive reasoning. The trick is in the fact that they're totally different things.

Nitpicking.

Says the guy who literally ignores entire paragraphs of arguments if there's even a single typo. Instead of watching those videos you're linking, you may want to try this one:

All right. Let's try an example you cannot nitpick.

I think that all ravens are black, and I want to test this theory. I now make three common sense assumptions.

1. If I find a raven and it's black, then my theory is at least partially confirmed.
2. Equivalent theories are confirmed by the same things (e.g., all ravens are black is confirmed by the same things that confirm black is what all ravens are).
3. The only way to disprove the idea that all ravens are black is to find something that's a raven but isn't black. Therefore, the theory "all ravens are black" is equivalent to "all non-black things are not ravens."

Now I start to observe the world. I see a red chair. It isn't black, and it isn't a raven. So my theory that ravens are black has been confirmed. Similarly, this green apple is more evidence that all ravens are black.

Again, your assumption is still unfalsifiable unless you have some means to observe every single Raven that has ever, or could ever, exist. You need not make such a definite assertion. Science doesn't do that, because all claims must be tentative. You seem not to understand how to formulate a basic scientific hypothesis, and you certainly don't seem to understand what methodologies are employed to confirm or falsify them.

The first link does not require a login. The results are right here:

The second link is important because it tells us the a priori chance of getting the flu. Without a flu shot, your chance of getting the flu ranges from 5 to 20 percent. So if we take 20,000 people who have not been innoculated on average 2,500 of them will get influenza. This year the efficacy of the vaccine is supposedly 59 percent. So if those 2,500 people are vaccinated then 1,475 will be spared influenza. So to spare 1,475 people from influenza 20,000 people need to be immunized. That means that 18,525 people will reap no benefit at all from the vaccine. Either they weren't going to get influenza in the first place, or they got the flu despite the innoculation.

Accordingly, we can conclude that 92.6 percent of the people who get a flu vaccine are not benefitted in the slightest. This is the optimistic number. See:
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/201/2/186.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23978527
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/719740

So you're completely ignoring the actual efficacy of the vaccine itself and concluding that, because the majority of people don't get flu, the vaccine isn't successful?

 

[Acim]

What are these scientific methods?

Feel free (anyone) to answer this question as best you can. Nothing on google search provides what I consider a solid answer. So, I'll use the one basic method to try and see what sort of systematic results come from my asking this in another thread. So far, these alleged other methods strike me as ad hoc type investigations that when done over time, become a ritual that is most likely written down as some sort of 'method' but I'm thinking if observed in actual practice, aren't strictly followed. More like loose guidelines.

Heck, every human behavior that has forethought has methodology to it. Prayer and meditation are methods seeking understanding/knowledge, in a systematic way (though that depends on the observer).

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So, people building religious temples from whatever time period were in fact scientists.

No. As I explained in the post (and you apparently ignored):

"In a very general sense, "engineering" can just be "any systematic way of producing an object, outcome or function", but in regards to the design of the Mars Rover it was most definitely the scientific definition and application of engineering that applied."

In other words, not all "engineering" is necessarily scientific - but the kind of "engineering" that went into developing the Mars Rover certainly was.

What are these scientific methods?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

None of these explain how science is involved, though clearly imply that science is involved, or magically, at the helm. I honestly can't think of any ideology (including religion) where you couldn't do the same thing. Imply that science is at the helm of all systematic understandings / practices, even while novices and naysayers may lack in those (advanced) understandings.

I don't think you understanding. Engineering is DEFINED as a part of science. When you said that "engineering" was involved in the forming of the Mars Rover, rather than science, you were basically stating that a PART OF SCIENCE was not involved in SCIENCE. Do you understand the difference between saying "Engineering is a form of science" and saying "all forms of engineering are science"? I already explained this.

Even old school creationism would be "science" by this type of logic.

How?

Just lacks a coherent understanding (perhaps), but to divorce it from science would seem to be based entirely on partiality when the evidence exists that a structure (or structures) are observable. All of our experience tends to find structures are designed by intelligence with a method in place. Obviously debatable on the last point, but not so much that it ought to be considered a science, since literally everything has science at its helm.

I think you're just getting a bit confused now. Science is a methodology used to decipher fact from fiction - engineering (in the scientific sense) is the application of the scientific method to build and design systems or objects.

 

[Zosimus]

Try using google.co.uk

Okay.

Still no.

Oh, I get it now! You're utterly irrational!

On the contrary, you are the irrational one. Evidence cannot be used to support conclusions without using a logical fallacy.

YOU use inductive reasoning CONSTANTLY, EVERY DAY to reach conclusions that are so obvious to you that you take them for granted - to assert that induction isn't in some way reasonable, you must believe that you are basically incapable of doing ANYTHING rational, which makes reading a single thing you write here pointless.

Completely untrue. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that it is true. Let's assume that I use induction every second of the day.

So what? Does that make induction logically justificable? No.

Confirmation bias isn't the same thing as inductive reasoning. The trick is in the fact that they're totally different things.

Confirmation bias is the tendency among people to look for things that confirm their beliefs rather than things that might falsify their beliefs.
Yet you claim that you believe in scientific falsficationism. Sadly, you don't even know what it is.

Again, your assumption is still unfalsifiable unless you have some means to observe every single Raven that has ever, or could ever, exist.

No, finding one white raven would falsify the claim.

You need not make such a definite assertion. Science doesn't do that, because all claims must be tentative. You seem not to understand how to formulate a basic scientific hypothesis, and you certainly don't seem to understand what methodologies are employed to confirm or falsify them.

Scientific hypotheses are never and can never be confirmed. That's the point, dumbass. First you say that all claims must be tentative, then you say methodologies are used to confirm them. Get a brain, come back, and then we'll talk.

So you're completely ignoring the actual efficacy of the vaccine itself and concluding that, because the majority of people don't get flu, the vaccine isn't successful?

No, what I'm doing is pointing out the misleading nature of CDC statistics by calculating the NNT.

From http://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/Number_Needed_to_Treat_e.htm

The NNT (Number Needed To Treat) is a statistic that summarizes the effectiveness of a therapy, or a preventive measure, in achieving a desired outcome. It is one way to indicate the clinical significance of an intervention. The simple idea is that no treatment works for everybody, so how many do you need to treat to benefit one case?

• The number needed to treat (NNT) is the number of patients with a condition who must follow a treatment regimen over a specified time in order to achieve the desired outcome for one person.

Treatments not equal?

• The NNT can be presented in negative terms, where the goal is to avoid a negative outcome such as taking medication to prevent a stroke; but it can also apply to achieving a cure.
  

------------------
Actually, more specifically, I am calculating NNV (number needed to vaccinate). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_needed_to_vaccinate

Or we could talk about the effectiveness of the trivalent influenza vaccine in terms of NNV (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3994812/ ).

>For community-dwelling seniors, the NNT to prevent 1 case of influenza is 40. The flu shot has not been shown to decrease hospitalizations. Evidence that the flu shot decreases mortality is likely biased.

If the NNT = 40 then treating 100 people will prevent 2.5 cases of influenza. In other words, 97.5 percent of those who receive the shot do not receive any benefit.

Math... get it?

 

[Acim]

No. As I explained in the post (and you apparently ignored):

"In a very general sense, "engineering" can just be "any systematic way of producing an object, outcome or function", but in regards to the design of the Mars Rover it was most definitely the scientific definition and application of engineering that applied."

In other words, not all "engineering" is necessarily scientific - but the kind of "engineering" that went into developing the Mars Rover certainly was.

Those definitions don't explain what make engineering scientific.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

This doesn't explain what the (other) scientific methods are. Glad I started a thread on this. I very much get that 'methods' (plural) are assumed to be done in any scientific practice and that upon sharing results, that methodology is shared. Curious though what makes it (automatically) scientific?

I don't think you understanding. Engineering is DEFINED as a part of science. When you said that "engineering" was involved in the forming of the Mars Rover, rather than science, you were basically stating that a PART OF SCIENCE was not involved in SCIENCE. Do you understand the difference between saying "Engineering is a form of science" and saying "all forms of engineering are science"? I already explained this.

I do understand what you're conveying, but the "scientific" assertion strikes me as over arching term that is arguably misapplied or so liberally applied, I don't see how anything could be (rightfully) be called pseudo science, other than as a matter of (educated) opinion. That, of course, would then make it debatable, but as I'm not really tackling this from a pseudo science position, then I'm having the debate at a point I think matters most.

How?

Finding methodology that at least some scientists believe is scientific. That's the sound bite response. Need more information from the other questions I'm raising to perhaps be more explicit and/or clarify what I mean. Possible I dismiss it once I get better understanding of whether all scientific methods are currently known or can be known.

I think you're just getting a bit confused now. Science is a methodology used to decipher fact from fiction - engineering (in the scientific sense) is the application of the scientific method to build and design systems or objects.

If I'm confused, it's because the idea that there are many methods but they aren't exactly well known is part of my (or everyone's) confusion and that 'scientific' could possibly relate to everything with regards to human behavior (or universal behavior/phenomenon) where forethought is present.

 

[SkepticThinker]

One of the best evidence is showing creation is the Earth and its environment happened very quickly.

The creation model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:


I. The universe and the Solar system were suddenly created.
II. Life was suddenly created. Creatures were already in their adult state.
III. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits.
IV. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial organism.
V. Man and apes have a separate ancestry.
VI. The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (catastrophism).
VII. The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been relatively recent.

There is no evidence for any of this. In fact, the evidence points to the opposite, in most cases (save for maybe I).

 

[Sapiens]

Where in the scientific method are these items mentioned or implied?

Pretty hard to separate, just look at Leonardo da Vinci.

Couldn't any endeavor be 'applied to science?' Such that religion is under auspices of science because some scientists use it or find it required?

No ... the faith in the supernatural and you premise of non-uniformitareanism are anathema.

To me, scientists sometimes (or routinely) claim too much about what science is or does. Would be super fun to explore all this in another thread. For now, we'll let this one see how willing people are to say all that they are up to is 'applied science' in the way they practice it.

You are on the outside looking in through blinders and heavy lenses of the wrong prescription, so while you've much to learn, you've little to share. it would not be "super fun" it'd be as boring as boring can be.

 

[Shad]

Yes, I'm certainly aware that science purports to work according to induction. But have you considered the problem of induction?

If you were then you won't be putting forward an formal fallacy regarding inductive logic.

Yes, what about it? Avoid putting absolute certainty in science and the problem is solved. One can point out that previous forms, or methods, of understanding the universe such as revelation or mysticism are not as reliable compared to science. You either accept this principle or reject it.

Let us imagine that we measure the speed of light and find it to be a certain speed, which I will call c. We measure it again and again, and the number comes out the same (with minor variations).

How do we know that the speed of light will be the same the next time we measure it? In short, your chain of logic looks something like this:

The speed of light behaved in a certain way in the past.
Therefore, it will behave in the same way in the future.

The problem is, of course, that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises! This is easily rectifiable, of course, by inserting the additional premise:

The past is a good guide to the future.

Which is simple argumentation not theories. You have confused the two.

But wait... how do we know that the past is a good guide to the future? Many people who are asked this question respond something like: "Well, it's always been a good guide in the past...and will, therefore, be a good guide in the future."

Irrelevant and a strawman argument as "people" are a generalization.

However, you cannot show that the past is a good guide to the future by showing that it has worked in the past and assuming that it will work the same way in the future! This is circular logic. It's begging the question. It's invalid.

Strawman as I never made this claim.

Perhaps, however, you have some sort of a solution to the problem of induction. I'd be very interested in hearing it.

'

Try reading beyond the opening statements as solutions have been proposed for over 2 centuries. However since the core of your argument is about evolution chances are your source of information never went beyond the opening statement. This is apparent by the statement "you have some sort of a solution to the problem of induction. I'd be very interested in hearing it." If you source of knowledge was from formal education you would already know about these solutions.

 

[Acim]

Pretty hard to separate, just look at Leonardo da Vinci.
No ... the faith in the supernatural and you premise of non-uniformitareanism are anathema.

You are on the outside looking in through blinders and heavy lenses of the wrong prescription, so while you've much to learn, you've little to share. it would not be "super fun" it'd be as boring as boring can be.

So science is only for elitists and no one that is learning about it in schools has any clue (at all) about what actual science entails. No other way to read what you have conveyed with utter contempt and disdain.

Science is easily practiced in the form that is easily found in google search/taught in schools, but you wish to use subjectivity of experience as way to present superiority (complex) around your version of science. All of which is laughable, at best.