|
Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
Sam Harris has another article out, and the second commenter on it had a lot to say, quoted below. I of course had to e-mail him (a heated e-mail of course) and he kindly replied and said why don't I send him my critiques so we can discuss them. Of course I'm going to. Ugh, I don't know if I just like arguing or if it's just that I really care about the truth. (Actually, I do know, it's the truth, but I do enjoy the arguing, and every now and then I find an agnostic I can convert.)
The Harris article is here, and here is the guy's response: [ QUOTE ] Sam, I've read your first book...working on the second. I've read some stuff on your site and watched the "Beyond Belief" videos. One answer to "atheism" that you have not mentioned and has been out for quite some time is Clarkian presuppositionalism. Nothing that I have read in your writings so far would come even close to addressing the issues Gordon Clark had raised in a number of his books. In my opinion, he has logically demolished not only your framework, but even the Christian "empiricism" held by the vast majority of Christendom. (intelligent design arguments, evidentialism, classical Thomistic arguments, etc.) Here's to name a few of the arguments: 1) Observation is unreliable. Scientists do not perform an experiment only once. Experiments are always repeated, and the results most always differ in some way. Why? Because the senses tend to deceive us; they are not to be trusted. Hence, numerous readings are taken in an attempt to guard against inaccurate observation. So much is this the case in science, that tests with unrepeatable results are never taken seriously. But if observation is unreliable, if the senses are so easily deceived, if the results frequently differ, why should one ever believe that he has discovered truth through observation? (2) All scientific experiments commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent. In syllogistic form this is expressed as: "If p, then q. q; therefore, p." Bertrand Russell, certainly no friend of Christianity, stated it this way: All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: "If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true." This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing." If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based. In the laboratory scientists work with a hypothesis. In this case the hypothesis is: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me." The scientist then attempts to deduce the predicted results that should occur if the hypothesis is true, such as "this bread nourishes me." He then performs an experiment to test the hypothesis to see if the predicted results occur. So he sits down at the table and eats the bread, and wonder of wonders, the bread does nourish him. The hypothesis, he concludes, is confirmed: "This bread is a stone and stones are nourishing." Silly you say? Yes! Yet, as Russell has asserted, it is not "fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based." That is to say, all scientific laws are based on fallacious arguments. (3) Science commits the fallacy of induction. Induction is the attempt to derive a general law from particular instances. Science is necessarily inductive. For example, if a scientist is studying crows, he might observe 999 crows and find that they all are black. But is he ever able to assert that all crows are black? No; the next crow he observes might be an albino. One can never observe all crows: past, present, and future. Universal propositions can never be validly obtained by observation. Hence, science can never give us true statements. (4) Equations are always selected, they are never discovered. In the laboratory the scientist seeks to determine the boiling point of water. Since water hardly ever boils at the same temperature, the scientist conducts a number of tests and the slightly differing results are noted. He then must average them. But what kind of average does he use: mean, mode, or median? He must choose; and whatever kind of average he selects, it is his own choice; it is not dictated by the data. Then too, the average he chooses is just that, that is, it is an average, not the actual datum yielded by the experiment. Once the test results have been averaged, the scientist will calculate the variable error in his readings. He will likely plot the data points or areas on a graph. Then he will draw a curve through the resultant data points or areas on the graph. But how many curves, each one of which describes a different equation, are possible? An infinite number of curves is possible. But the scientist draws only one. What is the probability of the scientist choosing the correct curve out of an infinite number of possibilities? The chance is one over infinity, or zero. Therefore, all scientific laws are false. They cannot possibly be true. As cited above, the statement of Karl Popper is correct: "It can even be shown that all theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely zero." (5) All scientific laws describe ideal situations. As Clark has said, "At best, scientific law is a construction rather than a discovery, and the construction depends on factors never seen under a microscope, never weighed in a balance, never handled or manipulated."3 Clark uses the law of the pendulum as an example: The law of the pendulum states that the period of the swing is proportional to the square root of the length. If, however, the weight of the bob is unevenly displaced around its center, the law will not hold. The law assumes that the bob is homogeneous, that the weight is symmetrically distributed along all axes, or more technically, that the mass is concentrated at a point. No such bob exists, and hence the law is not an accurate description of any tangible pendulum. Second, the law assumes that the pendulum swings by a tensionless string. There is no such string, so that the scientific law does not describe any real pendulum. And third, the law could be true only if the pendulum swung on an axis without friction. There is no such axis. It follows, therefore, that no visible pendulum accords with the mathematical formula and that the formula is not a description of any existing pendulum. From our study of these five logical difficulties, it can be readily seen that science is not capable of giving us any truth. And if the scientific method is a tissue of logical fallacies, why should Christians seek to argue from science to the truth? Simply stated, they should not. Science is useful in accomplishing its purpose, i.e., subduing the Earth. But that is all it is useful for, nothing more. The question arises, "If science never gives us truth, how can it be so successful?" It all depends on how one defines success. We are now able to put a man on the moon; we are also able to destroy our fellow man with one push of a button. Are these measures of success? Scientific theories are always changing (whereas truth is eternal). Is constant change a measure of success? Science is successful when one understands its purpose, and when one understands that false theories sometimes work. Newtonian science, for example, worked for years. It has been replaced by Einstein’s theory. But even though he believed his theory to be a better approximation of the truth than Newton’s, Einstein declared that his own theory was false. Science has its place in a Christian philosophy, an important place. But science is never to be seen as a means of learning truth. Truth is found in the Scriptures alone; the Bible has a monopoly on truth. It is God’s Word that must be believed, not the experiments of men. As Robbins has said: "Science is false, and must always be false. Scripture is true and must always be true. The issue is as clear, and as simple, as that." [/ QUOTE ] |
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
tl; dr
However, I did like his 'example' of asserting the consequent. If bread is a stone, and stones nourish me, then this bread will nourish me. The bread does nourish me, therefore stones nourish me. This is not an example of what he is arguing, its simply horrible and unsupported premises. |
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
I'd pick a better target to argue with. This is just skidoo with better references and more honesty.
Gordon Clark is a joke. Many philosophers are jokes, but Clark in particular hardly even qualifies as a philosopher. His style of argument is essentially ancient, ignoring any modern work in philosophy. He's really just a theologian; his work is the philosophical equivalent of ID in science. That said, this guy will 'argue' with you by repeating by Clarks arguments until he grows tired, accidentally contradicts himself, or reaches a point where his semantics break down. Standard fare. I would just say "LOL@Gordon Clark" Edit: Arguing is a kick. Be sure to update this thread with your correspondence [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] |
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
For the three or four people that even care, here's what I said. The second e-mail I sent was "I forgot to run the spell check, sorry!" and the first was:
[ QUOTE ] Alright! Let's get started! I will be unavailable for the next week or so, so if you want to respond, I won't be available to reply back for a bit. In this e-mail, it is only important to me to show the flaws in the five or six numbered assertions you made. I am guessing it is a waste of my time to try and do any more than that, though I am hoping I might by accident, if you reply and we have continued correspondance. So here we go!... ---Quote---- 1) Observation is unreliable. Scientists do not perform an experiment only once. Experiments are always repeated, and the results most always differ in some way. Why? Because the senses tend to deceive us; they are not to be trusted. Hence, numerous readings are taken in an attempt to guard against inaccurate observation. So much is this the case in science, that tests with unrepeatable results are never taken seriously. But if observation is unreliable, if the senses are so easily deceived, if the results frequently differ, why should one ever believe that he has discovered truth through observation? ------------ First off, observation is not unreliable. You would have to expand on what you mean by saying that if you want to debate me on this point. When I see something, and you confirm to me that you see it too, as does everybody else, we can be fairly sure we are all in fact seeing something and not sharing in a hallucination. After all, it is technically possible that you are hallucinating your entire life and nothing is real. But given what we know about how the brain works and given technological advances, this is highly improbable to the point where it is virtually impossible. There are an infinite number of things which are POSSIBLE but just not likely. I'm sure you've heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster; he falls in this category (as does God). Observation itself is at a basic level, just that, seeing (or in some other way observing) something. You then ask somebody else, do you see this, and if you get a bunch of people who do, then you can reasonably assume you aren't hallucinating and that you are in fact observing. After enough times of people saying "yeah, I see that too" you begin to rely on what you see as being "real" because you observe and others have already continually told you that you are seeing what they are, so it becomes truth. In that sense, you can "trust" your senses, even if they are impulses from the brain, and you have a blind spot in your eye, etc. In the quote above, you clearly understand how many tests must be done before a theory is validated, but what you don't understand is WHY it is validated, even if results differ. You are testing PREDICTIONS made by a theory, and atest of that theory may include many different things or ways of doing things and even if the results differ, as long as they fit with the predictions made (and many mroe tests also pass) the theory becomes bascially validated. The theory that "rocks fall to the ground when dropped" is a scientific theory which can be tested. It can never be "proved" true--it can only continue to pass all the tests we make. The "theory" of gravity and teh "theory" of evolution are both unprovable in that sense---they simply continue to pass every test and prediction made by them. Admitadly, theory is a misunderstood word. "Theory" in the scientific sense could be substitued for the words "The encompassing body of knowledge surrounding" since that's what it means. It's like saying "The Thoery of Numbers". Math is true; it's not a "theory" in the sense of a hypothesis. A theory may be right or wrong, but the title "theory" has no relevance. ---Quote--- (2) All scientific experiments commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent. ----------- Asserting the consequence is not a fallacy; it is simply the next step up from observation. Let's say you come to me and say your jaw hurts, and we can go back and time and see everything you have done for the past.. week, for example. We record everything you did and then either do those things ourselves or watch otehr people do them and then see which of them ends up going to a doctor saying their jaw hurts. If only the people who were punched in the (lower part of their) face recently have the problem, we can make the statement "When I observe a person get punched, he usually goes to the doctor and says his jaw hurts." There is SOME kind of connection. That is not a faulty assertation. Thanks to statistics, we can know that with enough people claiming this, a coincidence becomes a cause/effect relationship. All scientific assertations are this type of argument at their basic level. (They linked chains have just grown so long that's it's hard to imagine this is so, but it is.) At this point in time we think and we think and we develop a hypothsis, a theory, as to WHY punching a face makes a jaw hurt. That hypothesis is a statement which has some (possibly many) testible predictions, including the one that punching the face makes the jaw hurt. With a logical understanding of nature and the many laws and correct theories we have, we can usually come up with a few good hypothesis, and then we test all the predictions they make and the one that continues to pass the tests shows itself that it is better at predicting things because its foudnation of WHY is correct. All it would take to prove evolution or gravity or any number of thigns wrong is ONE time, one thing which the theory predicts wouldn't happen, for the theory to be either tossed out, or more likely, ammended. Newtonian Mechanics is true, but not at the really big, really small, or really fast levels. It's still true and we understand how and why it doesn't work as well at the other levels. In your example you use "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me." In science, before that hypothesis would be tested, all its elements are tested. We would first make sure that bread is in fact a stone, and we would then also make sure stones are nourishing. (We must makes observations and assert consequences.) That quoted statement is typical of much pseudoscience found in modern culture, much of which is often wrongly thought of as actualy science. And without an understanding of the scientific process, many people such as yourself fall for it. When you don't understand why things work, you cannot possibly defend yourself against illogical attacks on them because the logical foundation is missing. ---Quote--- (3) Science commits the fallacy of induction. Induction is the attempt to derive a general law from particular instances. Science is necessarily inductive. For example, if a scientist is studying crows, he might observe 999 crows and find that they all are black. But is he ever able to assert that all crows are black? No; the next crow he observes might be an albino. One can never observe all crows: past, present, and future. Universal propositions can never be validly obtained by observation. Hence, science can never give us true statements. ----------- You're right, science can never give a "true" statement, in the absolute sense. Nor can anything else. All we can do is have statements (theories) which have gone for long periods of time without being proved false, and hence the probability of being true approaches, but never reaches, 100 percent. And when you observe a crow that isn't black, you pipe up because you will have DISPROVED the theory ENTIRELY, with just one observation. Similarly, I cannot completely disprove God, but nor can I disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I could also say lobsters fly to Mars every night undectable by humans and human technology, and you can't prove me wrong. I have stipulated in that statement that we can never disprove it, but that doesn't make it likely or reasonable to believe. It is technically possible, but the "truth" is that the statement is almost certainly wrong. (See my next response, below, for more on induction.) ---Quote--- (4) Equations are always selected, they are never discovered. In the laboratory the scientist seeks to determine the boiling point of water. Since water hardly ever boils at the same temperature, the scientist conducts a number of tests and the slightly differing results are noted. He then must average them. But what kind of average does he use: mean, mode, or median? He must choose; and whatever kind of average he selects, it is his own choice; it is not dictated by the data. Then too, the average he chooses is just that, that is, it is an average, not the actual datum yielded by the experiment. Once the test results have been averaged, the scientist will calculate the variable error in his readings. He will likely plot the data points or areas on a graph. Then he will draw a curve through the resultant data points or areas on the graph. But how many curves, each one of which describes a different equation, are possible? An infinite number of curves is possible. But the scientist draws only one. What is the probability of the scientist choosing the correct curve out of an infinite number of possibilities? The chance is one over infinity, or zero. Therefore, all scientific laws are false. They cannot possibly be true. As cited above, the statement of Karl Popper is correct: "It can even be shown that all theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely zero." ----------- I don't even know where to begin with this one! It displays a fundumental misunderstanding of probability and statistics. And mean, mode, and median are all different things---he can take each one if he wants! The mean is the average, the mode is the most frequent value, and the median is the point which half the data points are above and half below. In the series [1, 1, 2, 3, 100] the mean is 21.4, the mode is 1, and the median is 2. If you are measuring the boiling point of water, all three terms will be the same number because water only boils at one temperature. There won't be a curve on the graph, there will be a circle of dots somewhere very near 212 degrees. The rest of the paragraph is just dazzingly horrible and if you have understood what I have said thus far, you should be able to see all the problems. I looked up Karl Popper and I did not find that quote; please tell me your source. I did find much interesting stuff about him though, including much about induction and faslifiability. He is correct is saying that a valid theory must in principle be falsafiable, and that's a really good criteria for theories to need to pass, I must say. I stated earlier that it's possible for lobsters to be flying to Mars and I also stipulated that it's impossible for us to detect them. This cannot be faslified, it cannot be tested. It is not a valid theory. The same goes for the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the FLying Spaghetti Monster, and God. Also, there was talk of inductive inference. As I understand it, this is a statistics issue, the same as any other science theory. If I see a white swan and it's the only swan I've seen, it's unreasonable to say all swans are white. If I see ten thousand and they're all white, it beomces more reasonable. After a while, it's a safe bet that the statement is true, but it is still falsifiable and can (and has been) proven to be wrong. That doesn't mean you cannot infer things though. I inferred that all things fall when dropped, and (as long as I'm not in space!) it's a true statement simply because it continues to pass all the tests by making accurate predictions since the theory was started. All it would take is one legitimate example of it being wrong to completely destroy it. ---Quote--- (5) All scientific laws describe ideal situations. ----------- No, the laws simply state the conditions in which the laws work. Gravity doesn't work well on the subatomic level. That doesn't mean it's a flawed theory. We have just revised it. ---Quote--- ......it can be readily seen that science is not capable of giving us any truth. And if the scientific method is a tissue of logical fallacies..... ----------- Clearly you have misunderstood what science is. Science is not a "thing" or a field of study, it is a PROCESS of observation, hypothesis, tests, and revision. It is self-correcting. Nothing can ever be "proved" 100% true, all it can do is continue to not be false and get us closer to "absolute" truth by continuing to self-correct and update. ---Quote--- Scientific theories are always changing (whereas truth is eternal). Is constant change a measure of success? ----------- Yes, but scientific theories are always changing is a specific direction towards truth. There may be bumps, missteps, and occasional backtracks, but it heads towards truth in the only manner possible via the scientific method. "Truth" is like the limit in a math equation... it is what everything is headed towards, even if it ahsn't reached it. Einstein's thoery isn't false. It is just not "absolute truth." It described MORE than Newton's theory, and is therefore better, and that's really all we can do in science is create more accurate theories which make more and mroe predictions and which are more encompassing, as we understand more and more about the universe. And yes, change (scientific) is (usually) a measure of success, as you can (hopefully!) by now understand. ---Quote--- But science is never to be seen as a means of learning truth. Truth is found in the Scriptures alone; the Bible has a monopoly on truth. It is God’s Word that must be believed, not the experiments of men. As Robbins has said: "Science is false, and must always be false. Scripture is true and must always be true. The issue is as clear, and as simple, as that." ----------- If you have understood where you misspoke previously, you should be able to see how this statement is just complete [censored]. "God" is not a testable hypothesis; he's not a valid statement! What evidence is there of him which can only be attributed to him and not by man??? And if you are a literal in the scripture, how in the world do you reconcile all the terrible things in the bible with modern living??? Killing back-talking kids and women whoa ren't virgins when you marry them, etc. What about tolerance?? What place does that have when the bible tells you to kill people of other faiths. Wait it says other gods. I worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so feel free to kill me. I know it says to do good stuff too, but I mean, the word of God can't contradict itself can it??? So clearly you do have to kill me, right???? Or at the very least burn my house??? --------------------- So there you have it! I would be happy to discuss this further with you if you want to spend the time, but as I said, I'll be gone for a week or so. -CK [/ QUOTE ] |
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
Solid response, although I personally would probably have just glazed over the last part about truth only being found in the Bible. Seems like you would be much more likely to sway him (say, 1 in 100 compared to 1 in 1000) if you didn't reveal your evil, heathen ways.
|
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
very well argued. even though he's kind of an easy target, making people like this look foolish never gets old.
|
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
I would have just mentioned how batguano-crazy it is to type 5000 words explaining how absolutely nothing can be verified as true then say the Bible is verified as true. But I'm a man of few words.
|
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
Max,
I want to thank you for the response. Responses like yours help affirm that I am on the right path and make me even more grateful that God saved me from the "[censored]" you and the godless propose. "Let's get started!" ( : 1) You say that "observation is not unreliable." Gordon Clark: "Let us start with the red of a rose and the blue of a violet. First, a description of sensation will show that it does not give knowledge so readily as common sense imagines. Not everybody sees roses as red and violets as blue. There are some people who we say are color blind, and there are degrees of color blindness. It is difficult to tell what is color blindness and what are color illusions. The real color is very hard to settle upon. The condition of the organ, the eye, a disease, temporary sickness, a headache or extreme sensitivity change our color sensations. "Let me give you one little example. If you would take a course in art, oil painting, you might take a square of canvas and put some color paint on the top half of it and another color on the bottom. It could be red and blue or any two colors you wish just so long as they're different. And then after they have dried, take a brush full of gray paint and just bring it down vertically over the two parts of the square and you will see that that one stroke of brush has put two different colors on the canvas, the color of the gray at the top is not the color of the gray at the bottom half of the canvas. So the color that you see depends on the background against which you see it. And since there is always a background, you never see anything as it is all by itself. "I could also mention some optical illusions: the Texas rancher who was sure he was seeing a mirage and drove his pick-up truck into a lake. Some of my friendly opponents try to meet my argument against empiricism by claiming that I merely parrot the ancient skeptics. I'm afraid of two things: The ancient skeptics didn't know anything about Texas, and, in the second place, if I am parroting the ancient skeptics, that is not a sufficient answer to their arguments. "Take one thing that certainly the ancients didn't know. Get a nice piece of bristle-board cardboard and paint one-half of it with black India ink. Leave the other half white and then put little swiggles of black on the white half. Then get something that will rotate at about 500 revolutions a minute, and what color will you see? Will you see black? Will you see gray? Well, if you haven't done this experiment I'm pretty sure you just don't know. I'll tell you: You'll see purple; you'll see red; you'll see green; you'll see some sort of brown. You will see all these colors just from a mixture of black and white, and this gives you considerable difficulty in trying to say that you see the color of anything at all or to paraphrase a little bit from Augustine, there is nothing given (das Gegebenes, if you know the German technical term), nothing given in sensation without intellectual interpretation." "…In the second place, this empirical theory, after making such a poor beginning with sensation, requires a theory of images to account for the retention of knowledge after the sensation has stopped. When you talk about the sensation, when it is gone, and you have an image that is retained, there are other difficulties. If perception is an inference from sensation, and images follow the perception, how can one determine when the inference is valid? "At one time, I inferred that I saw a truck. Another time, a few minutes later, I inferred that I saw a mailbox. But how do you tell whether either inference is valid? And then in the second place, some people, especially scientists, not artists, but especially scientists, don't have any images. And that's a difficulty I don't see how the empirical philosophy can ever overcome. They seem never to have thought of the existence of such people. Thomas Aquinas and David Hume, best known for their theories of images, just seem to believe that all people have images. But that isn't so. There are some people, and I know one fairly well, who have no images at all." Does that help "expand" on the meaning? Furthermore, you support your claim that observation is reliable because "After enough times of people saying "yeah, I see that too" you begin to rely on what you see as being "real" because you observe and others have already continually told you that you are seeing what they are, so it becomes truth." No it doesn't Max. Max, are you a big supporter of formal logic? Seriously. Because I always hear how "rational" you non-religious people are yet you make the most awful, fallacious arguments I have ever seen. Your example is begging the question. Max, hello? You can't appeal to sensation to argue for the reliability of sensation. Just because 10 other people see what you see, doesn't now mean that all of those sensations are accurate. Furthermore, it doesn't explain how perception is an inference from sensation. 200 people can collaborate and write a book explaining how 2+2=6, but unless you are a complete moron, then you know that's not true. You do know it is 4, right? Furthermore, you state, "this is highly improbable to the point where it is virtually impossible." Which is it Max? Impossible and maybe impossible are two different things. You need to make up your mind. 2.) You say, "Asserting the consequence is not a fallacy; it is simply the next step up from observation." And here we go…the "rational" empiricist reveals his love for logic. Max, I should not even continue with you past this point because you've just admitted to being irrational, but since I'm bored at the moment, we'll continue. Max, is this a valid argument? * If you eat many puppies, you will get full. * You are full. * Therefore, you must have eaten many puppies. You claim this is "not a fallacy", but simply "the next step up from observation." So, empiricism is taking us to the next step by being able to prove that when people are full, this means they have eaten puppies…hmmm….Max, I hope you don't ever invite dog lovers to your thanksgiving festivals. See, this is the problem with you empiricists. You so desperately want to be thought of as "rational", "reasonable" people, yet you know that your empiricism will not get you far, "rationally" speaking. You don't stick to the rules of valid argumentation because you know that empiricism can't, so instead of changing your argument, you make up new rules. You create a new logic. What was considered fallacious reasoning is now valid. What used to be undeniable, like the law of contradiction, is now merely a tool that we can take or leave. What nonsense! Max, I noticed you and others have mocked the example of stones and breads, but Max…hello…that was a direct quote of Bertrand Russell. Again, RUSSELL says, "All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: "If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true." This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing." If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based." Your beef is not with me, but with a fellow atheist. Take it up with him. 3.) You say, "You're right, science can never give a "true" statement, in the absolute sense. Nor can anything else. All we can do is have statements (theories) which have gone for long periods of time without being proved false, and hence the probability of being true approaches, but never reaches, 100 percent." You know, until now, I would not have thought that a "reasonable", grown man could make such a ridiculous statement; however, when you despise logic, as you have demonstrated in (2), then I guess I can understand why you argue this way. Max, you admit that not only science, but NO ONE can ever make a "true" statement, right? But then you turn right around and try to argue that over long periods of time, if we don't prove our hypothesis false, we increase the "probability of being true". Max…hello…what is "true"? How do you know you're getting closer to something you can't know? That's like asking my four year old what 235x320 equals. She says, "I don't know". I then say, "well, take a guess." She then responds, "ummm…5?" And then I respond back with the question, "Are you close to the true answer?" Max, how in the world does she know she's close if she doesn't know the answer? Yet, here you are trying to argue that we have gotten close to "truth", even though we don't know "truth". Another reason to stop correspondence with you, but hey, I'm still bored. 4) You say, "The mean is the average, the mode is the most frequent value, and the median is the point which half the data points are above and half below. In the series [1, 1, 2, 3, 100] the mean is 21.4, the mode is 1, and the median is 2. If you are measuring the boiling point of water, all three terms will be the same number because water only boils at one temperature. There won't be a curve on the graph, there will be a circle of dots somewhere very near 212 degrees." Max, I don't know what is worse – you typing such nonsense or the fact that you have a few supporters on a forum calling your response "Solid " and "very well argued". It's a sad day. I don't even have to know a single thing about water to point out the glaring problem with this paragraph. You said, "If you are measuring the boiling point of water, all three terms will be the same number because water only boils at one temperature." Then you said, "There won't be a curve on the graph, there will be a circle of dots somewhere very near 212 degrees." Hahaha…man, is this even worth responding to? That sounds like a line off of the latest movie "Idiocracy". Let me quote you again, seeing that your supporters at 2+2 may be slow too and have a hard time seeing it: 1. same number…one temperature 2. circle of dots…somewhere very near 212 On Pooper, ask your friend arahant, since he's the philosophy expert. You go on to say, "If I see a white swan and it's the only swan I've seen, it's unreasonable to say all swans are white. If I see ten thousand and they're all white, it beomces more reasonable." No it doesn't. Unless of course you redefine "reasonable" in such a way as to avoid formal logic; which is what you do, of course. It would only appear "reasonable" to people who don't place a high premium on formal logic. "After a while, it's a safe bet that the statement is true, but it is still falsifiable and can (and has been) proven to be wrong. That doesn't mean you cannot infer things though." I never said you can't infer things. I can infer things all day long. I can infer that you're a transvestite midget with four legs. The problem is not inferring things, the problem is that inferences must follow sound, logical reasoning. To infer that that 100th swan will be white because the first 99 were white is an invalid conclusion. It is not a sound, logical argument. Again, wrestle with Bertrand Russell if you have a problem with it. (5) You say, "Nothing can ever be "proved" 100% true, all it can do is continue to not be false and get us closer to "absolute" truth by continuing to self-correct and update." Then you say, "scientific theories are always changing is a specific direction towards truth. There may be bumps, missteps, and occasional backtracks, but it heads towards truth in the only manner possible via the scientific method. "Truth" is like the limit in a math equation... it is what everything is headed towards, even if it ahsn't reached it." Once again Max, if you don't know the answer to 235x320, then you could never say that your "guess" is close to the "true" answer or not. Either you know or you don't. If you have no idea whatsoever where Timbuttohawk is, then how can you tell your family in the car that you're getting closer? You want to have your cake and eat it too. Instead, you should grow some chest hair and accept the logical end to your empiricism – you can't know anything at all. Lastly, you say "If you have understood where you misspoke previously, you should be able to see how this statement is just complete [censored]. "God" is not a testable hypothesis; he's not a valid statement! What evidence is there of him which can only be attributed to him and not by man???" Hmmm, for a man that can't know any certainty, you sure do sound certain here. Max, of course you're not going to see "God" as a "testable hypothesis" because you are an empiricist – you limit yourself to only that which is observable. You assume that empiricism is true and then build your entire worldview on it. The problem is not with God but with your limited, weak, bankrupt, self-contradictory theory of knowledge. You've ruled God out from the start with presuppositions that are complete non-sense. You say, "And if you are a literal in the scripture, how in the world do you reconcile all the terrible things in the bible with modern living??? Killing back-talking kids and women whoa ren't virgins when you marry them, etc. What about tolerance?? What place does that have when the bible tells you to kill people of other faiths. Wait it says other gods. I worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so feel free to kill me. I know it says to do good stuff too, but I mean, the word of God can't contradict itself can it??? So clearly you do have to kill me, right???? Or at the very least burn my house???" Max, I've been studying the Bible for around 14 years now. There is not a day that goes by when I am not chewing on something in there. I've taught it (been on staff at three churches) and written on it many, many times. If you want to debate interpretations of Scripture, then let's have a debate. But if you're going to treat the Bible as mere "[censored]", probably having spent very little time in it at all and I seriously doubt that you have attempted any systematic study of it, then don't pretend to tell me what it teaches and try to argue from it. Your questions simply reveal the ignorance you have of what it actually teaches…if you want to debate interpretations, let's have a formal debate. Let's see your hermeneutical method at work, but I'm not playing these 100-questions games with you. Jason |
THE PREVIOUS POSTER IS THE PERSON I WAS WRITING TO...
Sorry everybody, I know everybody hates all caps, and so do I, but the poster "kingneb" is the person who wrote the quoted reply in my OP, and I was oh so sure that SMP would want to read his reply. If I was wrong, then the mods can give me a star.
Well, now everybody knows my name is Max. Oh well, I suppose I'll learn to live with it! But you Jason.... you.... you have now entered onto the 2+2 forums!!! (**Scary music**) I want to wait a bit before I respond to see what others have to say first. Again, I really appreciate your taking the time to respond and also for calmly beginning our conversation in the face of my original heated e-mail! |
Re: THE PREVIOUS POSTER IS THE PERSON I WAS WRITING TO...
If this was any other forum I'd be flaming you endlessly, Max.
|
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
Wow. This is guy is not only arrogant but seems dishonest.
Its late but this struck me... [ QUOTE ] Max, is this a valid argument? * If you eat many puppies, you will get full. * You are full. * Therefore, you must have eaten many puppies. [/ QUOTE ] The guy goes on to make a bad argument then pretends its the position that atheists would take. Sigh. So dishonest. Of course its not a valid argument. This doesn't reflect the logic that scientists use. If anything, it reflects the type of reasoning we see from theists. For example... The Bible is true because God says so in the Bible. anyhoo... too late for this. |
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
kurto,
You do understand how formal logic works, right? Formal logic is not so much interested in the truth of propositions as it is interested in the FORM of the argument. You can plug in "puppies" or you can plug in "cake", "stones", or "bread" - it doesn't matter. The fact that this is a bad argument has nothing to do with either, it's the FORM of the argument. And it is the FORM of the argument that Bertrand Russell, not I (though i agree) says is invalid and the "argument upon which all scientific laws are based." Again, Russell: [ QUOTE ] "All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: "If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true." This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing." If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based." [/ QUOTE ] You are getting so hung up on the individual words, that you are missing the bigger picture. FORM, kurto, FORM. So, what is your response to Bertrand Russell? |
Re: THE PREVIOUS POSTER IS THE PERSON I WAS WRITING TO...
kid,
my immediate reaction to neb's rant is: he uses your name - "max" - a total of 17 times. he really needs to give you logic lessons in the worst way. he has been on staff at 3 different churches. he has studied the bible every day for 14 years. textbook case of what is known within his circle as: "spiritual pride" however, in all fairness, you picked the fight with him so it's your bed dude; you get to lay in it. if he embraces a biblical axiomatic stance and you do not then your common ground will probably be limited to: "love your god" "love your others" wherein both of you get to define your god (governor of decisions) and then it can result in a case of dueling gods depending on how far apart the definitions are. (e.g. my god can beat up your god) keep in mind that his current definition of god probably does not allow you the freedom to define a definition other than his definition. ray |
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
[ QUOTE ]
kurto, You do understand how formal logic works, right? Formal logic is not so much interested in the truth of propositions as it is interested in the FORM of the argument. You can plug in "puppies" or you can plug in "cake", "stones", or "bread" - it doesn't matter. The fact that this is a bad argument has nothing to do with either, it's the FORM of the argument. And it is the FORM of the argument that Bertrand Russell, not I (though i agree) says is invalid and the "argument upon which all scientific laws are based." Again, Russell: [ QUOTE ] "All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: "If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true." This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing." If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based." [/ QUOTE ] You are getting so hung up on the individual words, that you are missing the bigger picture. FORM, kurto, FORM. So, what is your response to Bertrand Russell? [/ QUOTE ] Ok, my turn I suppose. Bertrand Russell is using a kind of strawman here - you DO know what a strawman is, right? His example is nothing like the scientific method. Since you seem to want to explain formal logic to us, I will explain the scientific method to you. Step 1) Define a question. In this case, "Is bread a stone?" (A second question is "Are stones nourishing?", but this must be a separate experiment. Just one of Russell's fallacies.) Step 2) Gather information. In this case, we are interested in the characteristics of stone. For example, most stone is hard. It has a certain chemical makeup. It has a certain range of densities. We define particular metrics for measuring these qualities; we may use the Rockwell hardness scale, for example. Step 3) Form a hypothesis. In this example: "If bread is a stone, then it will have the qualities I collected in step 2." Step 4) Perform experiment. We measure the hardness of bread using a Rockwell Hardness Test, a Brinell Hardness Test, or a Mohs Hardness Test. Perhaps we even use all three. We may submerge it into water to measure its volume. We weigh it on an accurate scale, which we have independently calibrated, to obtain its mass. We do chemical analysis to find out what elements it is made of. We can examine it under a microscope to see its structure. Step 5) Analyze the data. Did we miss anything important? Is our scale accurate? Is our water test sufficient to measure the volume, or does water change volume in different environments? What is the error factor in each test? Are there other qualities of stone that are exclusive to it? Step 6) Interpret the results. Here we use an important feature of formal logic - inversion - which is far different than what Russell states. "If all stone has qualities x, y, and z, and bread is a stone, then all bread will have qualities x, y, and z. Now, if bread does not have quality x, or bread does not have quality y, or bread does not have quality z, then bread is NOT a stone." We do not assume that bread IS a stone if it has qualities x, y, and z. Interpreting the results is very important. Could bread be anything OTHER than a stone? For example, is our only quality "stone has a rockwell hardness greater than xxx"? If this is all that we test, and bread passes the test, then we must examine the set of all objects having rockwell hardness greater than xxx. Could bread be a metal? What other qualities does metal have? It conducts electricity, first of all. So does bread conduct electricity? If not, then we can eliminate metal from the set of objects. These are all done in separate experiments. In order to try to reduce the vast set of experiments required, we strictly defined a stone in step 2. Rather than just use one quality, we defined many separate tests that could define a stone. We try to pick these so that there is little overlap with other objects. Thus, if bread passes the test, it is highly likely to be a stone. However, there is still a chance we have made a mistake, which is why we do.... STEP 7) PUBLISH RESULTS. Now we put our butts on the line and show our results to the world. We open ourselves up to criticism. Perhaps we used an Acme Version 3.7 bread weighing machine, and someone reviewing our results happens to know that V3.7 has a particular problem weighing bread. Perhaps someone has discovered a stone that does NOT have quality y. Perhaps someone else has discovered another object that has all the qualities x, y, and z, but is NOT a stone. Publishing our paper gives all these people a chance to reply, or try to repeat our results. Repetition of experiments is common and important in the scientific method. Additionally, the fear of embarassment from publishing poor experiments makes us (usually) be very careful in our method. Step 8) Further tests and repetition. After the criticisms of our results, we can do further tests on bread and stones. We then modify our hypothesis, reject our hypothesis, or become more confident in our hypothesis. After many repetitions of all the steps, if our hypothesis still seems to be valid, then we become extremely confident in it. So you see, the scientific method is extremely detailed. The publishing of results is a key component. Contrary to popular belief, scientists are often trying to DISPROVE a hypothesis, not prove it. Scientists are extremely critical of the work of other scientists. They are quick to point out flaws in the methods or assumptions, and it is this highly competitive nature that makes the scientific method robust and trustworthy. Cheers. ~M^2 |
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
[ QUOTE ]
You do understand how formal logic works, right? Formal logic is not so much interested in the truth of propositions as it is interested in the FORM of the argument. [/ QUOTE ] Yes. And you made a logic fallacy in your example which most scientists would not make. You deliberately made a fallacy and pretended that atheists/scientists are making that same mistake. (Please note- I also saw your original post and saw that you have no problem deciding your own truths.) You claim, "Truth is found in the Scriptures alone; the Bible has a monopoly on truth." This is the kind of arbitrary decisions on truth that only people who drop reason and embrace Faith can make. It amuses me that you try to articulate semantic arguments against science and reason and then make this whopper of a declaration. Frankly there are apologists on this forum who make much better reasoned cases then you do without such obvious whoppers. [ QUOTE ] You can plug in "puppies" or you can plug in "cake", "stones", or "bread" - it doesn't matter. The fact that this is a bad argument has nothing to do with either, it's the FORM of the argument. [/ QUOTE ] This is coming from the guy who plugs in "The Bible" as the ultimate truth simply because he was raised with that particular superstition. More importantly, a bad argument is a bad argument. But you haven't shown anyone except for yourself making a bad argument. Your post was a collection of dishonest representations of scientists/atheists/people who use reason, condescension and your 'made up' truths. [ QUOTE ] "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing." [/ QUOTE ] Umm... no one is drawing this conclusion, "now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone" the bread IS a stone if your original premise is correct... that is, you classified a bread as a stone. But the fact that the bread is nourishing is not why its a stone. The way you phrased the conclusion is erroneous and not how rational people think. You haven't shown where anyone is making such fallacies. |
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
Just read the linked Harris’ essay, he seems to know what he is talking about, although I would rate religion as a bit more useful then he implies. The other guy reads like a nutter.
|
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] kurto, You do understand how formal logic works, right? Formal logic is not so much interested in the truth of propositions as it is interested in the FORM of the argument. You can plug in "puppies" or you can plug in "cake", "stones", or "bread" - it doesn't matter. The fact that this is a bad argument has nothing to do with either, it's the FORM of the argument. And it is the FORM of the argument that Bertrand Russell, not I (though i agree) says is invalid and the "argument upon which all scientific laws are based." Again, Russell: [ QUOTE ] "All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: "If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true." This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing." If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based." [/ QUOTE ] You are getting so hung up on the individual words, that you are missing the bigger picture. FORM, kurto, FORM. So, what is your response to Bertrand Russell? [/ QUOTE ] Ok, my turn I suppose. Bertrand Russell is using a kind of strawman here - you DO know what a strawman is, right? His example is nothing like the scientific method. Since you seem to want to explain formal logic to us, I will explain the scientific method to you. Step 1) Define a question. In this case, "Is bread a stone?" (A second question is "Are stones nourishing?", but this must be a separate experiment. Just one of Russell's fallacies.) Step 2) Gather information. In this case, we are interested in the characteristics of stone. For example, most stone is hard. It has a certain chemical makeup. It has a certain range of densities. We define particular metrics for measuring these qualities; we may use the Rockwell hardness scale, for example. Step 3) Form a hypothesis. In this example: "If bread is a stone, then it will have the qualities I collected in step 2." Step 4) Perform experiment. We measure the hardness of bread using a Rockwell Hardness Test, a Brinell Hardness Test, or a Mohs Hardness Test. Perhaps we even use all three. We may submerge it into water to measure its volume. We weigh it on an accurate scale, which we have independently calibrated, to obtain its mass. We do chemical analysis to find out what elements it is made of. We can examine it under a microscope to see its structure. Step 5) Analyze the data. Did we miss anything important? Is our scale accurate? Is our water test sufficient to measure the volume, or does water change volume in different environments? What is the error factor in each test? Are there other qualities of stone that are exclusive to it? Step 6) Interpret the results. Here we use an important feature of formal logic - inversion - which is far different than what Russell states. "If all stone has qualities x, y, and z, and bread is a stone, then all bread will have qualities x, y, and z. Now, if bread does not have quality x, or bread does not have quality y, or bread does not have quality z, then bread is NOT a stone." We do not assume that bread IS a stone if it has qualities x, y, and z. Interpreting the results is very important. Could bread be anything OTHER than a stone? For example, is our only quality "stone has a rockwell hardness greater than xxx"? If this is all that we test, and bread passes the test, then we must examine the set of all objects having rockwell hardness greater than xxx. Could bread be a metal? What other qualities does metal have? It conducts electricity, first of all. So does bread conduct electricity? If not, then we can eliminate metal from the set of objects. These are all done in separate experiments. In order to try to reduce the vast set of experiments required, we strictly defined a stone in step 2. Rather than just use one quality, we defined many separate tests that could define a stone. We try to pick these so that there is little overlap with other objects. Thus, if bread passes the test, it is highly likely to be a stone. However, there is still a chance we have made a mistake, which is why we do.... STEP 7) PUBLISH RESULTS. Now we put our butts on the line and show our results to the world. We open ourselves up to criticism. Perhaps we used an Acme Version 3.7 bread weighing machine, and someone reviewing our results happens to know that V3.7 has a particular problem weighing bread. Perhaps someone has discovered a stone that does NOT have quality y. Perhaps someone else has discovered another object that has all the qualities x, y, and z, but is NOT a stone. Publishing our paper gives all these people a chance to reply, or try to repeat our results. Repetition of experiments is common and important in the scientific method. Additionally, the fear of embarassment from publishing poor experiments makes us (usually) be very careful in our method. Step 8) Further tests and repetition. After the criticisms of our results, we can do further tests on bread and stones. We then modify our hypothesis, reject our hypothesis, or become more confident in our hypothesis. After many repetitions of all the steps, if our hypothesis still seems to be valid, then we become extremely confident in it. So you see, the scientific method is extremely detailed. The publishing of results is a key component. Contrary to popular belief, scientists are often trying to DISPROVE a hypothesis, not prove it. Scientists are extremely critical of the work of other scientists. They are quick to point out flaws in the methods or assumptions, and it is this highly competitive nature that makes the scientific method robust and trustworthy. Cheers. ~M^2 [/ QUOTE ] Science doesn't do what this guy does... he claims the Bible is the ULTIMATE TRUTH... his proof: He then rests his case. |
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
[ QUOTE ]
So you see, the scientific method is extremely detailed. The publishing of results is a key component. Contrary to popular belief, scientists are often trying to DISPROVE a hypothesis, not prove it. [/ QUOTE ] What ?!! We can't just say "Einstein said it" case closed. What about if I have a book that says, "everything in this book is true", surely that's enough. luckyme |
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
Leave it up to the atheists to ramble on about nothing and never directly address the main portion of the post. They latch on to a sentence or two at the end and ignore the rest. Great work guys.
Here, let’s make this very simple. Forget bread, stones, and puppies. Two questions, three possible answers for each…answer the questions. 1. Is inductive reasoning formally fallacious? Yes; No; Maybe 2. Is asserting the consequent formally fallacious? Yes; No; Maybe My answers are: 1. Yes 2. Yes Max’s answers were: 1. Yes – “You're right, science can never give a "true" statement, in the absolute sense.” 2. No - “Asserting the consequence is not a fallacy” I await your answers to 1. and 2. |
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
Actually, I think Magic Man already trumped you using theist arugment.
Simply declare a book the Ultimate truth and the argument is over. Though I do enjoy your arrogant condescension. Its amazing that you've worked for churches. Obvious your particular brand of faith doesn't value humility. Take care. |
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
[ QUOTE ]
Leave it up to the atheists to ramble on about nothing and never directly address the main portion of the post. They latch on to a sentence or two at the end and ignore the rest. Great work guys. Here, let’s make this very simple. Forget bread, stones, and puppies. Two questions, three possible answers for each…answer the questions. 1. Is inductive reasoning formally fallacious? Yes; No; Maybe 2. Is asserting the consequent formally fallacious? Yes; No; Maybe My answers are: 1. Yes 2. Yes Max’s answers were: 1. Yes – “You're right, science can never give a "true" statement, in the absolute sense.” 2. No - “Asserting the consequence is not a fallacy” I await your answers to 1. and 2. [/ QUOTE ] Q) Does the scientific method assert the consequent? A) No. Please respond to my detailed discussion on the topic. |
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
1. Maybe
Induction isn't formally sound; that doesn't mean it's formally fallacious. Russell's error here is in trying to express inductive reasoning in deductive terms - this is a flawed approach because induction is essentially just a mechanism applied where pure deduction doesn't work. It's an unfortunate necessity, that I'll grant, but it's not as unfortunate as the average person might tend to believe. Induction is flawed primarily in that it rests upon assumptions that are not verifiable - however, the bulk of these assumptions will be accepted by most rational individuals, and moreover deduction can only process existing assumptions, so any universal structure of reasoning must be "formally fallacious" by your standards. Hume did a good job of describing how, without induction, it's impossible for human beings to accomplish anything, and arguably impossible for us to even have a context for existence. We have no deductive basis for the assumption that the sun rises every morning and sets every night. However, if we accept a certain observational context, then the behavior of the sun can be predicted reliably. In order to "go around" science you'd have to begin challenging assumptions such as "the physical world exists." As virtually everyone implicitly accepts empiricism to some high degree (the only possible exceptions being dedicated mystics, who still take empirical considerations into account), and as an empirical context is necessary for rational communication in every case, it's reasonable for science to assume such a context (empiricism is a rational basis for attempting to construct a shared understanding of the world around us). Given this empirical context, we have something to work with. If a scientific hypothesis predicts certain results, and those results are confirmed through observation, that hypothesis gains credibility. The only remaining philosophical problem is that there are always an infinite number of hypotheses that predict the same results. Science solves this problem by implementing the standard of parsimony - the hypothesis with the fewest extraneous elements, the most economical or "least complicated," is the most useful (not necessarily "most likely to be true" - that's not what science is about). Given these standards, science becomes rationally justified. 2. Yes. Affirming the consequent is a fallacy. |
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
At the very least, induction is heuristically nonrigorous, which creates an absurd situation when it is considered necessary to the scientific method.
|
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
Magic Man, case in point.
Magic, this thread started as a correspondence between Max and I. Max said, point blank, that "Asserting the consequence is not a fallacy". That is the statement I am challenging. Care to join us or will you continue, like a good atheist, to ramble on about other stuff? can't answer a simple question, can you? |
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
[ QUOTE ]
Magic Man, case in point. Magic, this thread started as a correspondence between Max and I. Max said, point blank, that "Asserting the consequence is not a fallacy". That is the statement I am challenging. Care to join us or will you continue, like a good atheist, to ramble on about other stuff? can't answer a simple question, can you? [/ QUOTE ] Asserting the consequent is a logical fallacy. The scientific method does not assert the consequent. You posted your reply on a public forum, and are now ignoring important, convincing refutations to your arguments. Your original article was about the many flaws in the scientific method, which allegedly involved induction and asserting the consequent. I explained the scientific method in detail and stated why your arguments were invalid. Care to defend yourself, or will you continue to harp on a point that I did not make? Can't answer a simple question, can you? |
Re: THE PREVIOUS POSTER IS THE PERSON I WAS WRITING TO...
[ QUOTE ]
if he embraces a biblical axiomatic stance and you do not then your common ground will probably be limited to: "love your god" "love your others" [/ QUOTE ] Ray, do you have some sort of contractual obligation to paste this in every post you make? Just curious. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] |
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Magic Man, case in point. Magic, this thread started as a correspondence between Max and I. Max said, point blank, that "Asserting the consequence is not a fallacy". That is the statement I am challenging. Care to join us or will you continue, like a good atheist, to ramble on about other stuff? can't answer a simple question, can you? [/ QUOTE ] Asserting the consequent is a logical fallacy. The scientific method does not assert the consequent. You posted your reply on a public forum, and Like a theist you are now ignoring important, convincing refutations to your arguments. Your original article was about the many flaws in the scientific method, which allegedly involved induction and asserting the consequent. I explained the scientific method in detail and stated why your arguments were invalid. Care to defend yourself, or will you continue to harp on a point that I did not make? Can't answer a simple question, can you? [/ QUOTE ] Corrected to mirror his tone |
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
Magic Man,
what about: 1. Is inductive reasoning formally fallacious? Yes; No; Maybe |
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
[ QUOTE ]
will you continue, like a good atheist, to ramble on about other stuff? [/ QUOTE ] This statement is amusing because it uses many logical fallacies. For starters, what makes you think I am an atheist? Perhaps you thought to yourself "Many atheists defend the scientific method. Now, MagicMan has defended the scientific method. Therefore, he is an atheist." |
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
[ QUOTE ]
Magic Man, what about: 1. Is inductive reasoning formally fallacious? Yes; No; Maybe [/ QUOTE ] Inductive reasoning is not formally fallacious, as Madnak has pointed out. It is fallacious to claim to have PROVED something through inductive reasoning. It is not fallacious to increase one's confidence in the validity of a statement through carefully constructed inductive experiments. |
Re: THE PREVIOUS POSTER IS THE PERSON I WAS WRITING TO...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] if he embraces a biblical axiomatic stance and you do not then your common ground will probably be limited to: "love your god" "love your others" [/ QUOTE ] Ray, do you have some sort of contractual obligation to paste this in every post you make? Just curious. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] the statements are significant because they probably constitute the minimum possible amount of common ground between any two humans. to put this another way, it's not at all unreasonable to expect every human that exists to adopt these statements as the entire axiomatic foundation for the philosophical framework of their life - provided the individual gets to define god for themselves. imagine a world where every child was fed those two axioms from birth as the highest governor of decisions. as it stands right now, we have people embracing definitions of god that do not grant others the freedom to select their own definition of god. the thing that the human race has still not learned how to do very well is to get along with others that have a significantly different definition of god, and not be threatened by them to the point of needing to kill them. the abrahamic solution is to kill or convert everyone with a different definition. the atheistic solution is to try and convert everyone to the null god. neither approach has worked very well. right now, i think the human race is closely examining all definitions of god that are misanthropic due to 911. ray edit: see this thread for more info on the significance of jesus 2 directives http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...=18#Post8475126 |
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Magic Man, what about: 1. Is inductive reasoning formally fallacious? Yes; No; Maybe [/ QUOTE ] Inductive reasoning is not formally fallacious, as Madnak has pointed out. It is fallacious to claim to have PROVED something through inductive reasoning. It is not fallacious to increase one's confidence in the validity of a statement through carefully constructed inductive experiments. [/ QUOTE ] The "confidence" had in the validity of an experimental construct is, like faith, a subjective state and only marginally related to the topic at issue. |
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] will you continue, like a good atheist, to ramble on about other stuff? [/ QUOTE ] This statement is amusing because it uses many logical fallacies. For starters, what makes you think I am an atheist? Perhaps you thought to yourself "Many atheists defend the scientific method. Now, MagicMan has defended the scientific method. Therefore, he is an atheist." [/ QUOTE ] Tragic Man, Actually, i didn't use that argument. Nice straw man. It was actually a lot more simpler than that, [ QUOTE ] "I considered myself agnostic for awhile, but am now fairly full-blown atheist." - Magic_Man in his Help plan my atheist wedding thread [/ QUOTE ] Now, it is very possible that someone else wrote that using your name - or - you've changed your position within the past week...if so, i apologize. But it appears I've made a fairly good assumption. ( ; haha, the irony - calling a man's bluff at a card site and i don't play cards. |
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] will you continue, like a good atheist, to ramble on about other stuff? [/ QUOTE ] This statement is amusing because it uses many logical fallacies. For starters, what makes you think I am an atheist? Perhaps you thought to yourself "Many atheists defend the scientific method. Now, MagicMan has defended the scientific method. Therefore, he is an atheist." [/ QUOTE ] Tragic Man, Actually, i didn't use that argument. Nice straw man. It was actually a lot more simpler than that, [ QUOTE ] "I considered myself agnostic for awhile, but am now fairly full-blown atheist." - Magic_Man in his Help plan my atheist wedding thread [/ QUOTE ] Now, it is very possible that someone else wrote that using your name - or - you've changed your position within the past week...if so, i apologize. But it appears I've made a fairly good assumption. ( ; haha, the irony - calling a man's bluff at a card site and i don't play cards. [/ QUOTE ] Not to worry, plenty of other fallacies. Ad hominems, for one. |
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] will you continue, like a good atheist, to ramble on about other stuff? [/ QUOTE ] This statement is amusing because it uses many logical fallacies. For starters, what makes you think I am an atheist? Perhaps you thought to yourself "Many atheists defend the scientific method. Now, MagicMan has defended the scientific method. Therefore, he is an atheist." [/ QUOTE ] Tragic Man, Actually, i didn't use that argument. Nice straw man. It was actually a lot more simpler than that, [ QUOTE ] "I considered myself agnostic for awhile, but am now fairly full-blown atheist." - Magic_Man in his Help plan my atheist wedding thread [/ QUOTE ] Now, it is very possible that someone else wrote that using your name - or - you've changed your position within the past week...if so, i apologize. But it appears I've made a fairly good assumption. ( ; haha, the irony - calling a man's bluff at a card site and i don't play cards. [/ QUOTE ] Well done. I am actually impressed and pleased that you read my other threads. However, the argument is still irrelevant, and is essentially a form of Ad Hominem. And you still have not replied to my explanation of the scientific method, and why it is a lot more reliable than weak induction or asserting the consequent. |
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
[ QUOTE ]
On Pooper, ask your friend arahant, since he's the philosophy expert. [/ QUOTE ] I wasn't going to reply, and I have no idea what this sentence means, but since you mentioned me by name, I feel obligated. Still, I don't have much to say...You think you're smart. You're an idiot. Also, your postings betray an awful lot of hostility. You may want to work on that. |
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
PokerStars Game #7888950175: Tournament #40104204, $20+$2 Hold'em No Limit - Level V (75/150) - 2007/01/11 - 22:10:37 (ET)
Table '40104204 1' 9-max Seat #5 is the button Seat 1: Scuffy (2050 in chips) Seat 2: PartysRigged (5160 in chips) Seat 4: hoyahawk1 (1950 in chips) Seat 5: bunny@SMP (3840 in chips) Seat 6: alvaro1107 (640 in chips) Seat 7: BPA234 (3855 in chips) Seat 8: wubbie075 (1910 in chips) alvaro1107: posts small blind 75 BPA234: posts big blind 150 *** HOLE CARDS *** Dealt to hoyahawk1 [Kd 9c] wubbie075 said, "gg" Scuffy said, "tough one rj" alvaro1107 said, "gg" wubbie075: folds Scuffy: folds PartysRigged: folds hoyahawk1: raises 300 to 450 bunny@SMP: folds alvaro1107: raises 190 to 640 and is all-in BPA234: folds hoyahawk1: calls 190 alvaro1107 said, "go me" *** FLOP *** [Ts 9s 5c] *** TURN *** [Ts 9s 5c] [Tc] hoyahawk1 said, "gl alvaronh" *** RIVER *** [Ts 9s 5c Tc] [Td] *** SHOW DOWN *** alvaro1107: shows [5s 5d] (a full house, Tens full of Fives) hoyahawk1: shows [Kd 9c] (a full house, Tens full of Nines) hoyahawk1 said, "wow" PartysRigged said, "lol" hoyahawk1 collected 1430 from pot BPA234 said, "gg ND" hoyahawk1 said, "god i run good" *** SUMMARY *** Total pot 1430 | Rake 0 Board [Ts 9s 5c Tc Td] Seat 1: Scuffy folded before Flop (didn't bet) Seat 2: PartysRigged folded before Flop (didn't bet) Seat 4: hoyahawk1 showed [Kd 9c] and won (1430) with a full house, Tens full of Nines Seat 5: bunny@SMP (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet) Seat 6: alvaro1107 (small blind) showed [5s 5d] and lost with a full house, Tens full of Fives Seat 7: BPA234 (big blind) folded before Flop Seat 8: wubbie075 folded before Flop (didn't bet) |
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
I got worked by the theists, first NR then bunny.
|
Another long reply
Alright, well I've waited a bit. I don't know that there's much point in replying, but I said I would, so I will. Also, I am very close to retracting the statement in my second e-mail to you about how at least your character shows by the calm and kind manner with which you offered to begin a debate, after my original flaming e-mail.
I also don't know what you think all us godless people do everyday! I try and be a good and decent person deriving my morals from how I can affect the happiness and suffering of others. Many things I do try to do, like the Golden Rule and all the be good to others stuff, is also in the Bible. Many things I actively campaign against, like rape and murder, are in the Bible too. Which bumper sticker do you think would be better for me??? I haven't decided between these two... "The hard work of one does more than the prayer of millions." or "Just another soulless atheist trying searching for world peace and harmony." Now then, onto a reply, since you seemed so annoyed at my previous digressions! First of all, there is not always a background. In fact, Einstein's equations for special relativity assume no background for light. (There may be stuff beyond the physical realm, but my point has always been that NOBODY AND NOTHING, not you, me, or the Bible can claim any kind of knowledge about what exists there, should anything "exist", without any data which comes into the physical world.) Secondly, colors are NOT subjective. They are frequencies of light. Your brain may see what I call "green" when I see "red" but whatever we interpret we will both call the same color and recognize it as such. It also has a specific measurable wavelength. One of your Clark quotes asserts " And since there is always a background..." On what basis is that assertion made??? With our current knowledge about special relativity this would seem to be objectively false. Do you have data or reasoning for believing otherwise??? (Of course you do! Because rocks and puppies nourish!!!!) That brings us to another one of your fun arguments. If Bertrand Russell did indeed say and mean what you have said and implied he did, then he is in error. Just because one is rational about religion is no guarantee that one cannot be wrong in other areas. Your argument says that puppies and rocks nourish and I am nourished, therefore I ate puppies and/or rocks." You do see why this is wrong, don't you?? I assume you do, since you are pretending that's the type of reasoning I have used, but as I said in my other post, I (and science at large) do not make the mistakes of that argument. A scientist would make sure puppies and rocks do in fact nourish and then they would make sure that either nothing else nourishes or that I have not eaten any other kinds of nourishments. Only then could they know that I must have eaten rocks or puppies. That argument, broken to simple elements, says "All A are B, therefore all B are A. This is not so. Look at the picture below. http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/9486/aandbxd6.jpg See how puppies or rocks, if nourishing, can be one of many nourishing things which I could have eaten. (Although puppy-rock souffle does sound delicious!! MMmmm.) http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/4...ppyrockqs4.jpg Clearly, you see how wrong it is to claim I must have eaten puppies and rocks. Before that, however, you tell me I need to make up my mind between impossible and improbable. I don't but if it will make you happy (one of the things I base ethics on), I will say God is NOT impossible, but he IS improbable, and on the same order of magnitude of, though slightly more probable than, His Holiness The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Next you go on to say that if one cannot instantly know what 235 X 320 is, that it's just not possible to know how close you are. Are you sure???? Have you really thought it through???? Are 5; 50,000; and 500,000,000,000 all likely to be as close, or somewhat close as each other??? Would you just randomly pick between the three???? Could you not use your knowledge of other number multiples to venture a guess as to the general order of magnitude???? Then, with the boiling point of water, I don't even know what the hell you said. You laughed and moved on. But of course that doesn't change the fact that mean, median, and mode are all different measures and you were flat out wrong to say that a scientist would just arbitrarily pick one. You say "To infer that that 100th swan will be white because the first 99 were white is an invalid." To say that it will 100% for sure be white is not valid. To say it probably will be is a perfectly reasonable statement. You say "Once again Max, if you don't know the answer to 235x320, then you could never say that your "guess" is close to the "true" answer or not. Either you know or you don't." Again, would you just randomly pick between the three choices?? Do you really think it's impossible to say one guess is more or less likely than another????? Honestly. You say "Max, of course you're not going to see "God" as a "testable hypothesis" because you are an empiricist – you limit yourself to only that which is observable." And that is my point. There may be things which we cannot observe, but not you nor I nor the Bible nor any one or anything can ever make claim to know for sure what is there. Is any kind of evidence for Heaven or Hell??? If so, what is it?? If not, then how can you possibly KNOW they exist???? You can't, period. "Max, I've been studying the Bible for around 14 years now. There is not a day that goes by when I am not chewing on something in there." Well, since I am no expert, then maybe you can tell me what is meant by the many of the passages, some listed below, in context of course, and how we should use them to live our lives... Deuteronomy 20:10-16 Deuteronomy 21:10-14 Deuteronomy 21:18-21 Deuteronomy 22:13-24 Deuteronomy 22:28-29 Deuteronomy 25:11-12 Exodus 21:7-11 Exodus 21:20-21 Exodus 35:2 Leviticus 20:13 Isaiah 13:16 Judges 21:10-24 Numbers 31:14-18 1 Corinthians 11:3-10 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 1 Timothy 2:12 2 Samuel 12:11 Feel free to pick out just a few, or even one. Maybe I got the context wrong. I look forward to your reply, as I'm sure it will be amusing, but honestly, you just do not have the ability to understand what you are saying. If we can find a devout Christian who is also a mathematician, maybe you could have him look at what you have said. You would probably think he is wrong, so I guess that won't do any good. People (who think) like you truly scare and horrify me. I just can't say it in a kind way, and since you let loose also, I won't even try to be kind. Your way of thinking is fundamentally warped and it is offensive to me that you are able to vote and raise children, assuming of course that you are. (Though I have great respect for the freedom of religion, I mean it when I say that your ability to vote and affect society is damaging and offensive.) All the best, Max http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/1226/brightsxg6.jpg |
Re: Why do I do this??? (guy\'s reply to Harris article)
Max,
Again I want to thank you for another response that reassures me that atheists have no answers to Christian rationalism aka presuppositionalism. You ask, “Which bumper sticker do you think would be better for me??? I haven't decided between these two..."The hard work of one does more than the prayer of millions." or "Just another soulless atheist trying searching for world peace and harmony." Ahhh…there’s nothing like a good, honest, thought out response from Max who rhetorically attempts to deceive people into thinking that there is no such thing as hard-working men who pray. Seriously dude, this is very amateurish and pathetic. You say, “There may be stuff beyond the physical realm, but my point has always been that NOBODY AND NOTHING, not you, me, or the Bible can claim any kind of knowledge about what exists there, should anything "exist", without any data which comes into the physical world.)” We do have data concerning things non-material, like the existence of God and heaven, etc. The problem is not the data but the simple fact that you don’t like the data. And you don’t accept the data nor ever will accept it because you’re an empiricist…you limit reality to that which can only be empirically verifiable, but that’s your problem, not mine. I’m not an empiricist. I don’t limit myself to such. One very good example of why I don’t limit myself to such are the laws of logic. I’ll be darned if you’re going to find the “law of contradiction” under a rock somewhere in the forest, but do you deny its existence? Max, are you prepared to argue that the law of contradiction is not a self-evident truth? Is it something we can just discard as merely “theory”? You say, “Secondly, colors are NOT subjective. They are frequencies of light. Your brain may see what I call "green" when I see "red" but whatever we interpret we will both call the same color and recognize it as such.” Max, you totally missed the point. The point is not that colors are subjective but that you and I agreeing to call the color of a rose “red” still does not tell us what color the rose ACTUALLY is. It doesn’t matter what each individual names it, the question is – if you and I are seeing two different things, how do we know who is seeing the object for what it ACTUALLY is? Merely asserting that our senses are reliable begs the question and ignores the problems that we are aware of with color blindness and so on. You say, “One of your Clark quotes asserts " And since there is always a background..." On what basis is that assertion made??? With our current knowledge about special relativity this would seem to be objectively false. Do you have data or reasoning for believing otherwise??? (Of course you do! Because rocks and puppies nourish!!!!)” What in the world are you talking about? Again, I don’t think you get the point. Here, let’s make this simple. Max, give an example of something you have observed that had no background/backdrop. You say, “That brings us to another one of your fun arguments. If Bertrand Russell did….”, blah, blah, blah…. You’re getting hung up on bread and stuff and you’re missing the simple point. The point is this: asserting the consequent is a logical fallacy and all scientific laws assert the consequent. Here, let’s make it simple again. Max, give me an example of a scientific law and then prove the law to me. I’ll make it even easier and suggest one: law of gravity. Prove to me why gravity is the reason objects fall to the ground. You say, “Before that, however, you tell me I need to make up my mind between impossible and improbable.” Yeah, and here is why I responded that way. You originally said, “But given what we know about how the brain works and given technological advances, this is highly improbable to the point where it is virtually impossible.” How can something that is still possible be “to the point” impossible? It may appear that I’m being picky with words, but I believe that is exactly part of the problem with you. You remain ambiguous so that you don’t have to commit to anything, in fear of getting cornered or something. You say, “Next you go on to say that if one cannot instantly know what 235 X 320 is, that it's just not possible to know how close you are. Are you sure???? Have you really thought it through???? Are 5; 50,000; and 500,000,000,000 all likely to be as close, or somewhat close as each other??? Would you just randomly pick between the three???? Could you not use your knowledge of other number multiples to venture a guess as to the general order of magnitude????” Ummm, nice try Max. Go back and read my post. In my little made-up scenario there, who was the person I was asking the question? “That's like asking my four year old…” The reason I used my “four year old” as the example is exactly because I know she doesn’t know “number multiples”. She is an example of someone who would be clueless as to the “true” answer in this case. Now, getting back to my original point – how can someone who is absolutely clueless as to what “truth” is, know when they are getting close to it? Don’t you have to have some idea of what truth is in order to know you’re there or least close to it? Doesn’t certainty have to exist in order for you to say, “I am almost certain”? Yet, you argue that there is no certainty…that there is no absolute truth. Max, if there is no absolute truth then how can you be CLOSE to it? How does one get closer to something that doesn’t exist?! Come on now. Sheesshhh. You say, “Then, with the boiling point of water, I don't even know what the hell you said. You laughed and moved on.” It bothers me that you can’t see the problem here. It’s so obvious that I figured I might insult people’s intelligence for pointing it out…buttttttt….you mocked Clark’s point about plotting temperatures on a curb graph and then said that there is “one temperature” and it’s the “same number”. However, you then went on to say that in a graphic it would be a “circle of dots…somewhere very near 212”. Come on Max, please tell me you see the problem here. ONE more time: 1. same number…one temperature yet, graphically represented as 2. circle of dots…somewhere very near 212 You say, “And that is my point. There may be things which we cannot observe, but not you nor I nor the Bible nor any one or anything can ever make claim to know for sure what is there. Is any kind of evidence for Heaven or Hell??? If so, what is it?? If not, then how can you possibly KNOW they exist???? You can't, period.” Again Max, the existence of these things have been revealed…the data is there. You just don’t accept the data. And you don’t accept the data because of your own biases and presuppositions that can not allow for knowledge of things that are not empirically verifiable. Again, not my problem. I have no reason to accept the limits you have placed on knowledge. In fact, I have reasons to not accept empiricism. You say, “Well, since I am no expert, then maybe you can tell me what is meant by the many of the passages, some listed below, in context of course, and how we should use them to live our lives...”…blah, blah, blah.. I’ve already told you I wasn’t playing that game with you. You are the one that brought Scripture up against my original post about the problems I have with science. Your rhetorical questions implied that you’ve study these things in context and could refute any attempts I would make at reconciling these passages with ALL that Scripture teaches. So again, if you want to join me in a formal, written debate where we pit my interpretation against yours, then let’s do it. If not, then I’ll just assume that you either don’t care or haven’t done any serious exegesis and your complaints were bankrupt to begin with. You say, “People (who think) like you truly scare and horrify me. I just can't say it in a kind way, and since you let loose also, I won't even try to be kind. Your way of thinking is fundamentally warped and it is offensive to me that you are able to vote and raise children, assuming of course that you are. (Though I have great respect for the freedom of religion, I mean it when I say that your ability to vote and affect society is damaging and offensive.)” Ummm Max, “warped” implies that there is some ideal shape/form, some standard by which I am not meeting. And what exactly is that ideal? Where is this so-called standard of which I am but a “warped” version of and how do you account for such a standard? Interesting questions to ask a person who doesn’t believe in absolutes…hmmmm… |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.