Posted on 06/29/2010 4:21:08 AM PDT by Christian_Capitalist
Naturalism/science as a philosophy is moot. Do science. Do philosophy. They’re different. But it all comes down to definitions it seems.
Have you tried to publish a paper that appeals to a supernatural creator for origins of life? How do you know it won’t be published? And I’m the one with too much fantasy.... If it is listed as one possible cause, then it should and probably will be published. I’m published scientifically. Are you? Are you are a reviewer? I have been. The problem is testability. That is a hallmark of the scientific method. Your quote from Ellis is typical to that of a theoretician. Experimentalists just haven’t figured out how to test it yet. See Theory of Relativity for a good example.
Heliocentric assumes a specific CS as center. GR and current thought assumes no universal center. Putting each on the same basis; that dog don’t hunt...
Hoyle is right about coordinate transforms. All physics must be correct independent of the coordinate system. But that is not heliocentrism. It just says all are correct and excludes neither or none.
With respect to the original tenet of this discussion, YEC is not consistent with the scientific method. Just too much juggling of the physics, permittivity and permissivity of free space and other stuff, to seem scientifically correct. Come up with experiments that demonstrate how the speed of light has slowed down dramatically in the last 10k years, that’ll give creation scientists credibility. From what I see, they are just are full of possibles and could bes.
“This is actually the fallacy of affirming the consequent. That because P ‘predicts’ Q and Q is observed; then P is supported. This works if and only if all alternatives to P are proved to be impossible. “
—That is not the fallacy of affirming the consequent. To be the fallacy, you’d have to replace the word ‘supported’ with ‘proven’.
I suppose it could be said that someone is committing the fallacy if they said that it’s impossible for evolution to be false - but I don’t think I’ve ever seen that.
Interesting non-response! FWIW, I have never had a YEC advocate (even one who claimed to be intelligent) answer that question -- and I've asked it numerous times...
AFAIK, other than the Milky Way only a couple of galaxies are visible to the naked eye in each hemisphere. Even so, I'm not sure whether a person three to four thousand years ago would know what he is seeing.
The "observer problem" is usually ignored in the many "age of the universe" debates around here. So again, I'll bring relativity and the inflationary theory to the table by mentioning that the universe is some 15 billion years old from our present space/time coordinates and approximately a week old from the inception space/time coordinates. For more: Gerald Schroeder: Age of the Universe.
Nope, it's critical to understand. Otherwise you end up believing the philosophical choices are empirically-based. They are not.
"Have you tried to publish a paper that appeals to a supernatural creator for origins of life? How do you know it won’t be published? And I’m the one with too much fantasy...."
Has anyone tried to publish a paper that appeals to a supernatural creator for origins of life? Surely someone has done so if that were possible. Surely you can point to one non-natural scientific paper. If it is possible there should be one somewhere. And I'm the one with too much fantasy? You're the one appealing to TV shows...
"If it is listed as one possible cause, then it should and probably will be published. I’m published scientifically. Are you? Are you are a reviewer? I have been. The problem is testability. That is a hallmark of the scientific method."
Which is why you can't show me one example of a scientific paper where a non-natural conclusion is reached. It's impossible. Won't ever happen. You just won't admit it.
"Your quote from Ellis is typical to that of a theoretician. Experimentalists just haven’t figured out how to test it yet. See Theory of Relativity for a good example."
Uh, if you cannot disprove the theory based on observation; it isn't scientific. Acentrism and geocentrism are equivalent under GR.
"Heliocentric assumes a specific CS as center. GR and current thought assumes no universal center. Putting each on the same basis; that dog don’t hunt..."
Assumes, yes. Shows, no. We can use acentrism in place of heliocentrism. No difference in terms of GR. Still no observable difference. Still not scientific. Still philosophical.
"Hoyle is right about coordinate transforms. All physics must be correct independent of the coordinate system. But that is not heliocentrism. It just says all are correct and excludes neither or none."
That's correct. Acentrism and geocentrism are equivalent and there is no difference under GR. Both are philosophical beliefs.
"With respect to the original tenet of this discussion, YEC is not consistent with the scientific method. Just too much juggling of the physics, permittivity and permissivity of free space and other stuff, to seem scientifically correct. Come up with experiments that demonstrate how the speed of light has slowed down dramatically in the last 10k years, that’ll give creation scientists credibility. From what I see, they are just are full of possibles and could bes."
Neither is the Big Bang consistent with the scientific method. It's full of its own set of possibles and could bes. And lots of jiggling with parameters, magically imposing inflation, magically stopping inflation plus an inability to test the original assumption. Long-ages suffers from the same problem. And Setterfield has accumulated lots of data showing that c is not constant over time.
But, it's like the 3rd grade class that recognized that So America was once joined to Africa. As long as the consensus is that it wasn't, 'science' and 'scientists' will never admit it. Philosophy intrudes again.
Since no single fact ever 'proves' a theory, supported is the correct term to use. It's not the 'proves' vs 'supported' that is the operative argument. It is the 'therefore'.
"I suppose it could be said that someone is committing the fallacy if they said that it’s impossible for evolution to be false - but I don’t think I’ve ever seen that."
Evolution is based on assumed naturalism plus the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Evolution (P) 'predicts' change, Change (Q) is observed; therefore Evolution is supported. This is and will always be a fallacy unless all alternative to P are proved to be impossible.
“Since no single fact ever ‘proves’ a theory, supported is the correct term to use.”
—Well, yes, “supported” is the correct term to use because, as you say, no single fact ever ‘proves’ a theory - to claim otherwise would be the fallacy of affirming the consequent. People committing the fallacy would be those using the incorrect term of “proven”.
The point of the fallacy of affirming the consequent is that no matter how many ‘q’s one finds that SUPPORT ‘p’, one can’t state with absolute logical certainty that ‘p’ is true.
If someone says that an elephant walked through my backyard, I would look for elephant tracks. If I find what appear to be elephant tracks, then the claim that an elephant walked through my backyard would indeed be ‘supported’. However, it would be going to far - and be the fallacy of affirming the consequent - to say that the claim that an elephant walked through my backyard is now a logical certainty, since there are other ideas that are at least possible (e.g a prank).
“Evolution is based on assumed naturalism plus the fallacy of affirming the consequent.”
—Evolution isn’t based on ‘naturalism’ any moreso than any other theory. MOST people who believe in evolution are not, in fact, ‘naturalists’. Most aren’t even atheists.
Which is why it is false to say that evolution is a proven fact. It is not. It is a theory based on the philosophy of naturalism and the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
"—Evolution isn’t based on ‘naturalism’ any moreso than any other theory. MOST people who believe in evolution are not, in fact, ‘naturalists’. Most aren’t even atheists."
It is irrelevant what people who believe in evolution believe. They could believe in fairies in the garden. It wouldn't change the the fact that evolution is based on the philosophy of naturalism and the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
“Which is why it is false to say that evolution is a proven fact. It is not. It is a theory based on the philosophy of naturalism and the fallacy of affirming the consequent. “
—Yes, it would be false to say that it’s a ‘proven fact’, which I’ve mentioned several times. I have never seen it claimed that evolution is a logical certainty, and so I have yet to see anyone commit the fallacy.
“It is irrelevant what people who believe in evolution believe. They could believe in fairies in the garden. It wouldn’t change the the fact that evolution is based on the philosophy of naturalism and the fallacy of affirming the consequent.”
—Then what sense does it make to say that it is based on ‘naturalism’? You keep making claims without explaining what you mean.
Do you believe that ALL theories are “fallacies of affirming the consequent” and ‘naturalism’, or do you believe that evolution is somehow different? If the theory of evolution is different from other theories, than in what way is it different?
“Creationists are the lowest IQ fools on the planet.” [excerpt]Well just remember, if an MRI machine ever contributes to the saving of your life, you have a ‘lowest IQ fool on the planet’ Creationist to thank.
And of all the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Neanderthals wandering around what is now Europe, for hundreds of thousands of years, one of those superstitious goobers discovered how to make fire. Whoop-dee-doo.
The theory doesn't have to be a 'proven fact' for the fallacy to operate. The only way the fallacy can be true and not a fallacy is the theory is a proven fact. Short of that, evolution is based on the philosophy of naturalism and the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
"—Then what sense does it make to say that it is based on ‘naturalism’? You keep making claims without explaining what you mean."
Because evolution is based on the philosophy of naturalism. It's a simple statement. What part don't you understand?
"Do you believe that ALL theories are “fallacies of affirming the consequent” and ‘naturalism’, or do you believe that evolution is somehow different? If the theory of evolution is different from other theories, than in what way is it different?"
I'm just pointing out the fact that evolution is based on the philosophy of naturalism and the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It's simply a philosophy supported by a fallacy. That won't matter to evolution's true believers. Their goal is to minimize the importance of that fact and claim that a philosophy supported by a fallacy is 'science'.
It does make a difference to people who can still think-critically.
Sorry, hadn't seen this Post until now.
I assume that Moses could see roughly as many galaxies as we can see today. The night sky -- like the already-mature animals, already-mature trees, and (for that matter) already-mature humans, whom God created in the Garden of Eden -- was created in a state of full maturation.
An alternative, or supplemental, explanation for the presence of distant starlight in a "young" universe is the fact that the Bible specifically says that God "stretched out the heavens" in the process of creation. Ergo, even assuming no variation in the speed of light from the first days of creation until today, there may well have been significant spatial-time dilation over the first six days of creation from a smaller "cosmic egg" -- in which light from NOW-distant stars didn't have to travel 15-Billion Light Years to reach us (assuming that our measurements are roughly correct), because they weren't as far away during the first six days of creation. (The Bible indicates that that whole universe was smaller).
Ping to #333 regarding distant starlight.
“The theory doesn’t have to be a ‘proven fact’ for the fallacy to operate.”
—Uh, of course not. As I’ve said (I think in every post now), a theory cannot be absolutely ‘proven’ to the point of being a logical certainty. The point of the fallacy is in not realizing that evidence found that is consistent with a theory merely *supports* a theory – it does not *prove* a theory. But you seem to be saying that it’s a fallacy to even think that evidence could even SUPPORT a theory – which would make even the concept of “evidence” itself a fallacy – since nothing could ever be used to support anything. That would mean that not only would finding elephant tracks in my backyard not ‘prove’ the statement that an elephant walked in my backyard – but it would even be completely IRREVELANT as to whether an elephant was in my backyard or not, and so there would be no point in even looking since nothing I find could “support” the contention either way. Likewise finding a bloody knife lodged in someone’s back with fingerprints shouldn’t be shown at a murder trial since it would be irrelevant – actually having trials at all would be pointless.
“Because evolution is based on the philosophy of naturalism. It’s a simple statement. What part don’t you understand?”
—Usually when someone uses the term it’s a simple statement, but since you always use these terms in ways I’ve never seen elsewhere and you never explain what you mean, I have no idea what you are trying to say (I doubt anyone else does either).
Every other time I’ve seen the term ‘naturalism’ or ‘philosophy of naturalism’ what was meant was that the person believes that “nature is all there is” and thus believes that the supernatural and miracles don’t exist. In other words the charge would be that the person rules out the possibility of miracles or the supernatural a priori, and so no matter how strong the evidence of a miracle is – and/or how weak the evidence for a natural explanation is – they will believe the natural explanation regardless – i.e they believe that the supernatural or miracles are impossible. But you already said that it’s irrelevant what the people think, and so I don’t know what you mean. Perhaps you mean that anytime someone suspects a natural explanation for ANYTHING, it’s based on the “philosophy of naturalism”? And so if someone suspects that water turned to ice in the freezer because it’s cold, it’s because of the philosophy of naturalism?
That's correct and doesn't seem to be a probem.
"The point of the fallacy is in not realizing that evidence found that is consistent with a theory merely *supports* a theory – it does not *prove* a theory."
No, the point of understanding the fallacy is realizing that the existence of Q does not necessarily support P. It only appears to because the believer is engaging in fallacy.
You said, "I have never seen it claimed that evolution is a logical certainty, and so I have yet to see anyone commit the fallacy." It is not necessary for evolution to be claimed to be a logical certainty for the fallacy to operate.
"But you seem to be saying that it’s a fallacy to even think that evidence could even SUPPORT a theory – which would make even the concept of “evidence” itself a fallacy – since nothing could ever be used to support anything."
No, evidence is what it is. The concept of evidence is not damaged because it is used in fallacious thinking. It is the fallacious thinking that is the problem, not the evidence.
"Every other time I’ve seen the term ‘naturalism’ or ‘philosophy of naturalism’ what was meant was that the person believes that “nature is all there is” and thus believes that the supernatural and miracles don’t exist. In other words the charge would be that the person rules out the possibility of miracles or the supernatural a priori, and so no matter how strong the evidence of a miracle is – and/or how weak the evidence for a natural explanation is – they will believe the natural explanation regardless – i.e they believe that the supernatural or miracles are impossible."
Evolution relies on natural explanations of evidence no matter how weak because it does assume naturalism 'a priori' and uses the fallacy of affirming the consequent to assume 'support' from evidence.
Your use of 'weak evidence' and 'strong evidence' appears to be where one of the problems occurs. Evidence is neither weak nor strong. Evidence simply is. It is the explanation that attempts to fit the evidence into the theory that is either weak or strong and that is where the fallacy operates.
"Perhaps you mean that anytime someone suspects a natural explanation for ANYTHING, it’s based on the “philosophy of naturalism”? And so if someone suspects that water turned to ice in the freezer because it’s cold, it’s because of the philosophy of naturalism?"
Unless it is a fact proven by excluding all other theories, any assumed natural explanation fitting evidence into a naturalistic theory is using the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
You appear to be thinking that any natural explanation of evidence is automaticallly wrong if the fallacy is invoked. It is the theory (P) that may still be wrong if the fallacy is invoked, not the explanation.
The natural explanation of evidence may be fine, but may not uniquely support the theory (P) because it also fits into competing theories that are diametrically opposed to theory (P). The natural explanation of evidence may also be wrong because it is assumed and not observed and so does not support the theory (P) at all.
Fallacious thinking means that you will not recognize that possibility because naturalism is assumed 'a priori' and the explanation is also assumed to be 'support' because of that 'a priori' assumption.
If you research the proper meanings of the terms “philosophical naturlism” and “methodological naturalism” I believe you’ll discover where the fallacy of the argument is.
“No, the point of understanding the fallacy is realizing that the existence of Q does not necessarily support P. It only appears to because the believer is engaging in fallacy.”
—If P claims Q, and Q is found to be true, then P IS supported. How else is P to be supported? How else does one investigate a theory or idea than to test whether the predictions (Qs) of the theory/idea/claim (P) are true or not? But one has to remember that ‘supported’ doesn’t mean ‘proven’ – that is the point of the fallacy. P can be supported by Q, but not proven. One doesn’t need to rule out every other possible explanation of Q other than P for P to be merely “supported”. Whenever Q is found to be true, P is supported and the theory lives another day, but it is not proven since there are always other explanations for Q other than P. As long as one remembers that, they are not committing the fallacy.
“It is not necessary for evolution to be claimed to be a logical certainty for the fallacy to operate.”
—The fallacy states: “If P, then Q. Q is true. Therefore P.”
In the language of logic “therefore P” means “a logical certainty” or “absolutely proven”, not merely “supported”.
You are still a little confused about Q. Q is not 'true' or 'false', Q is observed or not-observed. Q is not an explanation that can be true or false. P is the explanation and can be either true or false.
"How else is P to be supported?"
P is supported by eliminating all alternatives. Otherwise you are simply engaging in logical fallacy. That's the point.
"How else does one investigate a theory or idea than to test whether the predictions (Qs) of the theory/idea/claim (P) are true or not?"
What you are beginning to realize are the limits of science because theories are dependent on logical fallacy. This is why theories are constantly overturned and is an inherent weakness of science. If your theory is philosophical (like evolution) you cannot claim that it is scientific because huge portions of it are assumed, untestable and unfalsifiable. If your theory is methodological (like superconductivity) you may claim that it is scientific but it is still subject to being thrown out because not-Q can be observed at any time.
In sum, methodological theories can be overturned at any time and philosophical theories are unfalsifiable.
"—The fallacy states: “If P, then Q. Q is true. Therefore P.” In the language of logic “therefore P” means “a logical certainty” or “absolutely proven”, not merely “supported”."
It is not a 'logical certainty' or 'absolutely proven' that P is supported. It may appear that P is supported but alternatives to P may be supported as well. P may very well be false and Q may not have supported a false theory at all. That's the fallacy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.