Creationists Given Academic Credit for Trolling

Via LGF ^ | 8/10/09 | Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

[betty boop]

I think you need to re-read Shannon ...

Why?

Because I don't conclude that Shannon's "abstract mathematical model" obviates human observers/communicators? Or any other type of communicator, on the ground that Shannon's model itself is "indifferent" to the content of communications being sent/received?

[betty boop]

p.s.: Let me try that another way, _Jim:

Shannon Information Theory is the medium; it is indifferent to the content of any particular message. On the other hand, there would be no need for the medium, if there were no messages.

[_Jim]

Again “the absence of evidence is evidence of absence” is a rational and effective defense. The juror will fill in the blanks as he chooses.

One might conclude that Darwin didn’t say anything so we ought to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that means he didn’t have a position on such matters. That we cannot assume he had a motive for not mentioning his presuppositions or if he had any.

What does examination his other works, his writings reveal?

Do y'all use bottled oxygen up where you fly - or is it a pressurized cabin?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

I suspect the stumbling block on the receiver being informed is that the receiver in Shannon's mathematical model of communications can be a mind or spirit just as surely as a molecular machine or digital receiver or component in computers, robotics or software including artificial intelligence and so on.

It seems to me that to say that something has "informational heft" is to speak analogically. It does not confer actual physicality on anything; it is little more than a figure of speech.

Precisely so!

Shannon's is a mathematical model and for that very reason it is transportable to analyze communications of all kinds.

Some argue that Shannon's theory while obvious applicable in the discrete case can result in negative Shannon entropy (increase of uncertainty) in the continuous case and therefore is somehow inadequate.

I do not see this as a fault but the logical conclusion of its being applied beyond telecommunications or computing, e.g. Rosen's relational model for biology which is circular.

And in a very real sense, when I (receiver) read (decode) a letter (message) sent via USPS (channel) written to me (encoded) by a sender (author) my uncertainty (Shannon entropy) may be increased rather than reduced! LOLOL!

[Alamo-Girl]

Actually, his other works, relatives and associates, and contemporaneous reactions to his theory could feed any of the superimpositions that I mentioned.

For instance, Darwin is quoted from a letter to Hooker in 1871 as saying:

It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed..

NSF: Origin and Evolution of Life on a Frozen Earth

And Thomas Huxley, an "evangelical" atheist considered himself to be Darwin's bulldog.

And then there's Erasmus Darwin, Darwin's grandfather, who is considered to have inspired the Frankenstein story.

And of course his cousin, Sir Francis Galton is considered to be the father of eugenics, a great evil of the last century.

So there exists quite a bit of source material for anyone to fill in the gaps due to the "absence of evidence."

[tacticalogic]

So again I aver that the “absence of evidence is evidence of absence” is a rational, effective defense – and the Achilles’ heel of evolution theory and among the best Creationist arguments in the crevo wars.

It was submitted earlier that TToE is does not add address abiogenesis, but that may people believe that it does because Darwin failed to explicitly say so.

That failure is not a weakness in the theory itself, because what the theory does address would be the same, with or without it.

It is not argument in the war itself, it's a rationialization for starting the war in the first place.

[_Jim]

For instance, Darwin is quoted from a letter to Hooker in 1871 as saying:

...

And Thomas Huxley, an "evangelical" atheist considered himself to be Darwin's bulldog.

And then there's Erasmus Darwin, Darwin's grandfather, who is considered to have inspired the Frankenstein story.

And of course his cousin, Sir Francis Galton is considered to be the father of eugenics, a great evil of the last century.

So there exists quite a bit of source material for anyone to fill in the gaps due to the "absence of evidence."

Tangential, non-specific and tertiary;

I see

1) guilt by association (implying that Darwin is bad b/c of his associations)

2) Hasty generalization (by making an unjustified general inference from an insufficient sample of works writing or correspondence).

3) Spotlighting - infering that highly conspicuous individuals are define the group.

4) appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantium) Proposing that something must be true if not proved false, or false if not proved true.

Can't you provide something more concrete?

[Alamo-Girl]

An argument based on the "absence of evidence" is by definition not an argument about what was said but rather what was not said.

[Alamo-Girl]

If you will kindly reread my post 560, you'll notice I'm speaking about the debate itself and using those as examples. I'm not advocating a view on this thread.

[CottShop]

[[An argument based on the “absence of evidence” is by definition not an argument about what was said but rather what was not said. ]]

I wish you hadn’t said that

[CottShop]

[[An argument based on the “absence of evidence” is by definition not an argument about what was said but rather what was not said. ]]

I wish you hadn’t said that- had you not said that- we’d have soemthign to argue about

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL!

[tacticalogic]

An argument based on the "absence of evidence" is by definition not an argument about what was said but rather what was not said.

As long as what was not said is irrelevent within the scope of what was said, isn't such an argument non-sequitur?

[Alamo-Girl]

As long as what was not said is irrelevent within the scope of what was said, isn't such an argument non-sequitur?

Whether the conclusion follows from the omission is in the eyes of the beholder.

For instance, Obama and his wife have withheld from public scrutiny a great deal of their college records, writings and his work with Ayers. The omissions may cause a rational person to think they have something to hide. The conclusion follows from the omission.

Likewise, if the defendant does not testify in his own trial, a juror may conclude he or his attorneys believed his own testimony could be harmful to his case.

Unlike in "real life," in a trial, the judge may rule on pretrial "motions in limini" so that the jury is not even aware of evidence which he deems as prejudicial to the defendant, e.g. if the defendant had been previously convicted on charges which do not show a pattern of conduct related to the case at hand.

In a recent child molestation/murder case in California, the defendant had been in a plea negotiation for a reduced sentence in return for telling them where the child's body was located. While still negotiating, they found the body and the case was tried. That plea bargaining was withheld from the jury. Had the jury known there was an omission, even if they didn't know the substance of it, it would have influenced their decision.

Relating all these insights to Darwin's omissions - the more people know about his family, his affiliations, the reactions to his theory and his own private communications - the more justified they may feel in filling in the blanks. In their minds, it is not a "non sequitur" - but in your mind, it probably is.

[tacticalogic]

Whether the conclusion follows from the omission is in the eyes of the beholder.

That's implicitly declaring that there's no such thing as an objectively non-sequitur argument.

[Alamo-Girl]

Not exactly. I'm declaring that "non-sequitir" does not apply to conclusions drawn from omissions.

However, a conclusion drawn from something said could indeed be a "non-sequitir" - for instance, "the coffee is ready" does not follow from "the bread is in the oven."

[betty boop]

Relating all these insights to Darwin's omissions — the more people know about his family, his affiliations, the reactions to his theory and his own private communications — the more justified they may feel in filling in the blanks. In their minds, it is not a "non sequitur" — but in your mind, it probably is.

Excellent analysis, dearest sister in Christ!

Reasonable people look for context in formulating their ideas. It's the most natural thing to do. Especially when there are profound omissions, or huge gaps, in the evidentiary record. For then the question becomes, Why did this man draw the conclusions he did, despite these omissions? Did he simply "rationalize" them away — or what?

I don't think Darwin did that BTW. He himself recognized that the Achilles Heel of his theory was the fossil record, and said so....

[tacticalogic]

Not exactly. I'm declaring that "non-sequitir" does not apply to conclusions drawn from omissions.

However, a conclusion drawn from something said could indeed be a "non-sequitir" - for instance, "the coffee is ready" does not follow from "the bread is in the oven."

At the same time, you seem to be saying that if someone says "The coffee is ready", you can conclude that "the bread is in the oven" if they didn't say "The coffee is ready, and the bread is not in the oven."

[tacticalogic]

Relating all these insights to Darwin's omissions - the more people know about his family, his affiliations, the reactions to his theory and his own private communications - the more justified they may feel in filling in the blanks. In their minds, it is not a "non sequitur" - but in your mind, it probably is.

In my mind, if that's what they are doing then it's a textbook example of "ad hominem" and "guilt by association".

[Alamo-Girl]

Reasonable people look for context in formulating their ideas. It's the most natural thing to do. Especially when there are profound omissions, or huge gaps, in the evidentiary record. For then the question becomes, Why did this man draw the conclusions he did, despite these omissions? Did he simply "rationalize" them away — or what?

So very true!

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ, and thank you for your encouragements!