Debating Creationists

[Gottservant]

Deluded by careful examination of data? Interesting.

When I think of delusional people the first people that spring to mind aren't those who carefully study the world through controlled and rigorous testing.



Science being data driven is a pretty well understood principle, I'm sorry if you're having trouble keeping up.

I'M having trouble keeping up? What part of a world governed by principles don't you understand?

Having trouble maintaining order under the leader of your country?
Looking to the wrong sun to shed light on your world?
Hoping for evil thoughts to just go away today?
Expecting life to just work itself out for eternity, no rules needed?

All these things require principles! Examining data is not a principle!
You are basing your life on an expectation of knowledge that appears out of nowhere and is UNQUALIFIED.

Now, I'm not saying become wise overnight, but have you even read Proverbs once? Do you remember anything Jesus said besides "go the extra mile"?

No amount of data, is able to prove truth.

 

[variant]

No amount of data, is able to prove truth.

Data are just observations.

"Principles" are grounded in data.

If truth or principles are unobservable they don't exist.

Also you don't "prove" truth you observe and describe it.

 

[Gottservant]

Data are just observations.

"Principles" are grounded in data.

If truth or principles are unobservable they don't exist.

Also you don't "prove" truth you observe and describe it.

Actually quantum mechanics tells us that principles are first datum are second, because an observed principle may have an effect on the information around it whereas you can only search datum, you can't see it all at once, as data.

Just because you give it the term "data" does not afford it any special significance, any more than if you called it "miscellaneous" or "errata".

As for truth, the idea that you don't prove it is ludicrous.

Experience, proves truth.

 

[variant]

Actually quantum mechanics tells us that principles are first datum are second, because an observed principle may have an effect on the information around it whereas you can only search datum, you can't see it all at once, as data.

Quantum mechanics is a theory, a description of observed facts and data.

So no.

Whether your observations effect the observed states is irrelevant.

Objective reality isn't a set of principles it is a set of objects and events. "Principles" are our observations and descriptions of those things.

Just because you give it the term "data" does not afford it any special significance, any more than if you called it "miscellaneous" or "errata".

As for truth, the idea that you don't prove it is ludicrous.

Experience, proves truth.

Experiences are observations are data. Truth is a word that we use when we can describe and predict experiences well.

Also, just what is it exactly that you are trying to show me here? I mean, I don't mind a good epistemological discussion now and again, but they shouldn't seem so random to whatever point you started out trying to make poorly.

If you think experience leads you to truth then your initial argument is ludicrous and you agree with post #8 and you are just wasting my time rather rudely.

 

[Gottservant]

You are losing the plot: you were claiming that data gave you experience that allowed you to do without the truth and I used principle to prove it (was an error).
Now you want to pass the buck and make me look bad as if I have not been giving you principle all along.

Principles do not define truth, they encompass it.

The whole time you are looking for data to give you something more, I am pointing to principle (accessed through reason, justified by sound rhetoric).
Yet what do you see? Tell me, what? Another reason to complain about data? You decided that you would only seek out truth the way you already were and when Creationism cropped up requiring you to change that, you attacked it (so that data would continue to look like the final answer).

I don't even have a problem with that, myself, except that in doing so you insulted people who use rhetoric to work out that you skipped a beat (a standard I do not excuse myself from).

 

[Gottservant]

Look, I am not trying to hammer you, data has its place, it just does not trump rhetoric (rhetoric is of a totally different order).

 

[variant]

You are losing the plot: you were claiming that data gave you experience that allowed you to do without the truth and I used principle to prove it (was an error).

I made no such claim.

"Truth and principle" as you call them are arrived at via data, and careful observation there of, they are descriptions of it.

Now you want to pass the buck and make me look bad as if I have not been giving you principle all along.

Principles do not define truth, they encompass it.

You haven't been doing anything useful in my view of things.

The whole time you are looking for data to give you something more, I am pointing to principle (accessed through reason, justified by sound rhetoric).
Yet what do you see? Tell me, what? Another reason to complain about data? You decided that you would only seek out truth the way you already were and when Creationism cropped up requiring you to change that, you attacked it (so that data would continue to look like the final answer).

Data and experience are the basis of rhetoric, which is, nothing more than a presentation of it.

Creationism doesn't act any differently than evolutionary biology, it attempts to explain the data at hand, and simply does a poor job of it.

So, your argument fails at it's root as well as at it's stem.

I don't even have a problem with that, myself, except that in doing so you insulted people who use rhetoric to work out that you skipped a beat (a standard I do not excuse myself from).

It's not an insult, if you don't have the observations (data) to back up your argument (in this case there is a great deal that contradicts you) there is no point to it.

And no amount of rhetorical skill can help you with such a compromised position.

 

[variant]

Look, I am not trying to hammer you, data has its place, it just does not trump rhetoric (rhetoric is of a totally different order).

You call what you're doing here hammering me?

Rhetoric is just the art of arguing and persuading, it is of course, entirely trumped by observation.

No amount of arguing will keep the sun from coming up in the morning, any more than skilled presentation will make evolutionary biology untrue though so I am going to leave you for tonight.

 

[Gottservant]

You make no sense.

Why would data trump rhetoric? That defies logic.

If I were to tell you that your grandfather is coming to dinner, does that make you less of a son? No? So why would the presence of an observer disqualify the one reasoning about the observation?

You think I am trying to push rhetoric above data, but if you pay attention to what I have said, you will see that I am merely advancing rhetoric besides data (to point out your laziness).

 

[jayem]

Certainly scientists should look for natural explanations for all phenomena, but it does not follow that supernatural explanations are always false.

Well, so far, they always have been. Events that aren't understood have been attributed to supernatural forces for millenia. But in every case, when the actual mechansim was discovered, it's been shown to be a perfectly natural process. In the entire history of human knowledge, a supernatural explanation has never been shown valid for anything. So, even knowing the limits of inductive reasoning, why should I invoke supernatural entities to explain all the things we still don't understand?

Some claims of creationism are outside science (at least in its present form, maybe someday we can scientifically test for the existence of spirits etc.), but their critiques of evolutionary theory, and the flood geology of Biblical creationists, are within the realm of science to refute.
I'm still hoping for a recommendation of a book that best provides the positive evidence that evolution occurred, or that creation did not (whether Biblical or progressive creation, I try to consider all possibilities.

Evolutionary theory is not my field of expertise. But I asked a buddy of mine who's a college biology professor. He recommended this. It's a text book and presumes some knowledge of molecular biology. He says it's a comprehensive source for the current thinking on evolution and details the evidence supporting it. (It's also >$100 on-line. )
About the Book

 

[KCfromNC]

I've been looking for evidence for evolution and keep finding this circular argument instead.

Really? This is the second link to pop up when you search on "evidence for evolution" - 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Please, if you're going to resort to rhetoric like this at least make it plausible.

but it does not follow that supernatural explanations are always false

No, they don't even rise to the level of false. "It was magic" isn't an explanation, it is an excuse to stop looking for an answer.

 

[variant]

You make no sense.

Why would data trump rhetoric? That defies logic.

Because principles are descriptions of data, so if the data does not show what your principles hold to be true your principles are false.

It doesn't work the other way around, if you have a principle that keeps contradicting the data you get in and the observations you see, it simply isn't true.

So, epistemolologically the observation comes before the description.

If I were to tell you that your grandfather is coming to dinner, does that make you less of a son? No? So why would the presence of an observer disqualify the one reasoning about the observation?

The presence of contradictory observations disqualify faulty reasoning.

You think I am trying to push rhetoric above data, but if you pay attention to what I have said, you will see that I am merely advancing rhetoric besides data (to point out your laziness).

I understand that you are trying to defend the value of rhetoric but...

As I said, rhetoric is just presentation, rhetoric without the proper supporting data is useless and asinine (similarly to debating creationists on the merits of the theory of biological evolution).

So, I repeat:

Rhetoric simply isn't important as to whether or not something is true.

And

The only real debate on this issue is within the scientific community using published empirical data.

Religious purists lost that debate over a century ago, their rhetoric now is essentially meaningless.

 

[Gottservant]

I understand that you are trying to defend the value of rhetoric but...

You are contradicting order! Datum is last (you merely observe it), inquiry is second (you become aware), rhetoric is third (you reason), conjecture is fourth (you extrapolate), assertion is fifth (you construct), expectation is sixth (you anticipate), belief is seventh (you believe). They are all higher and higher orders of significance above datum. Yet you want to say "no, datum trumps all of these", rubbish! You are not even using your brain hardly at the level of datum.

Because principles are descriptions of data, so if the data does not show what your principles hold to be true your principles are false.

And this is why you are getting it the wrong way around: principles are discerned in Spirit, not by the letter of observation. It is a completely different faculty of the mind, that is engaged when forming an idea of a principle. You may carry the inspiration for the principle from elsewhere, but you do not define the principle by the inspiration. THEREFORE if a datum is the inspiration it cannot guide the principle, so much as inform it.

It's a bit like going to a playground, there are different constructs on which you can play and there is tanned-bark all over the ground to keep you from hurting yourself if you fall. The tanned-bark does not define which piece of play equipment you use, except where there isn't any since that would mean you could fall on that piece of play equipment and hurt yourself. Neither does the tanned-bark define whether you have a good time on the play equipment, the tanned-bark is everywhere it makes no difference to the actual fun you have. Now there might be a new piece of equipment that has just been put in and you might find that they haven't put any tanned-bark down, so you can't play on it, but that doesn't mean you never will, eventually they will put the tanned-bark down and all will be settled. So it is with principles, you can tell a long time in advance whether something is going to be fun, even if its not completely safe, because principles tell you about their nature regardless of whether padding has been put in to defend them.

So if I say "murder is wrong, but I'm not sure if it applies to animals" that doesn't mean I can't look forward to a life in which murder is wrong. At some stage it will be determined "murder is wrong, but not as wrong for animals, since they don't know anything". If I had given up because "well there is an animal that cries a lot if you try to kill it" then I would not have enjoyed meat in all that time, even if there are plenty of animals that do not cry at all. All it would have taken is for me to examine why in principle murder is wrong and it would have been clear that there are degrees of loss involved and something can be saved in most situations. Now a scientist may come along and say "well, I've discovered that animals have an imagination (they have actually discovered this by the way) but it is not as great as ours" then you have confirmed that animals are less crucial to life than we are and that meat is justified, but you haven't needed to drastically change anything because you had a principle which told you as much already.

It doesn't work the other way around, if you have a principle that keeps contradicting the data you get in and the observations you see, it simply isn't true.

If I say God doesn't create by interference, but by interpolation - that is a principle that you can test, but say you get a test result that looks like God is interfering you are not going to abandon the principle because your data is screwed up, the principle is true in Spirit, it has the confirmation of a conviction about the Universe riding on it that is not swayed by temporary results one way or the other. Datum can be misread, it can be misinterpreted, it can be corrupted, it is not a reliable basis for decisions about life. Once you have the principle, then you know "aha, this is what to look for" and the data will conform to your expectations and you can progress from data that conforms to constructive works that have a good working basis. You are trying to put the cart before the horse.

So, epistemolologically the observation comes before the description.

Not according to quantum mechanics.

As I said, rhetoric is just presentation, rhetoric without the proper supporting data is useless and asinine (similarly to debating creationists on the merits of the theory of biological evolution).

As I said, that is your opinion and it is not supported by the natural order of significance of the order of things working in the mind. You simply do not want to engage in meaningful debate about something you have preconceived notions about the value of. That's fine, but it makes you something of an animal in intellect, which is what you think you are anyway, right?

 

[variant]

You are contradicting order! Datum is last (you merely observe it), inquiry is second (you become aware), rhetoric is third (you reason), conjecture is fourth (you extrapolate), assertion is fifth (you construct), expectation is sixth (you anticipate), belief is seventh (you believe). They are all higher and higher orders of significance above datum. Yet you want to say "no, datum trumps all of these", rubbish! You are not even using your brain hardly at the level of datum.

You just have your order messed up. Observation comes before all else and because so, when you start to observe things that contradict your reasoning, you change your reasoning.

Well if you're sane and have a consistent view of reality you do anyhow.

And again, it doesn't flow the other way.

And this is why you are getting it the wrong way around: principles are discerned in Spirit, not by the letter of observation. It is a completely different faculty of the mind, that is engaged when forming an idea of a principle. You may carry the inspiration for the principle from elsewhere, but you do not define the principle by the inspiration. THEREFORE if a datum is the inspiration it cannot guide the principle, so much as inform it.

Principles are inferences from data. They are themselves observations about observations, they are not magical.

You can not form your principles in conflict to the data and if you do you are WRONG.

If I say God doesn't create by interference, but by interpolation - that is a principle that you can test, but say you get a test result that looks like God is interfering you are not going to abandon the principle because your data is screwed up, the principle is true in Spirit, it has the confirmation of a conviction about the Universe riding on it that is not swayed by temporary results one way or the other. Datum can be misread, it can be misinterpreted, it can be corrupted, it is not a reliable basis for decisions about life. Once you have the principle, then you know "aha, this is what to look for" and the data will conform to your expectations and you can progress from data that conforms to constructive works that have a good working basis. You are trying to put the cart before the horse.

"Principles" such as you say, that come from nowhere and can not be examined in the real world aren't even principles. They are just ideas that lack relationship to the world.

Not according to quantum mechanics.

You simply misunderstand quantum mechanics, which isn't all that surprising.

Your appeal to a theory about observational data to try to overcome my argument is amusing though.

As I said, that is your opinion and it is not supported by the natural order of significance of the order of things working in the mind. You simply do not want to engage in meaningful debate about something you have preconceived notions about the value of. That's fine, but it makes you something of an animal in intellect, which is what you think you are anyway, right?

It's not supported by your warped view of reality no. You can claim to be my superior all you like, but I doubt you'll convince anyone with these baseless arguments.

 

[Gottservant]

So you have all the observations you need, but one particular observation, do you search for the observation or do you make an assessment based on the observations you have?

 

[variant]

So you have all the observations you need, but one particular observation, do you search for the observation or do you make an assessment based on the observations you have?

You actively try to observe reality in a way that gives you more information about it.

 

[Gottservant]

You actively try to observe reality in a way that gives you more information about it.

Right, so you are giving me a principle in response to my question but you are not answering the question.
Well, what is it? Is the data now not as important as you were saying it was or is it?
I am not trying to corner you, but you have just shown yourself that principle is primary, because you have reverted to it.

Don't feel bad, it just shows you are intelligent, not merely quoting supposition based on data as the sole indicator of truth.

 

[variant]

Right, so you are giving me a principle in response to my question but you are not answering the question.
Well, what is it? Is the data now not as important as you were saying it was or is it?
I am not trying to corner you, but you have just shown yourself that principle is primary, because you have reverted to it.

Don't feel bad, it just shows you are intelligent, not merely quoting supposition based on data as the sole indicator of truth.

I'm not cornered though, so I'll just keep repeating myself and eventually you may understand the situation.

Data is primary, it is the source of all principle.

The principles I espouse are grounded in observation of reality. In the data.

We observe reality in such a way as to give us more information about it because our experience with observing reality has lead us to that generalization.

We speak in principles true, but that doesn't make them primary, they are descriptions of observational data, the language itself is made from the data, the rules are based off of observing and describing what rules seem to exist (in the data).

So, while you can make a rhetorical argument based upon smoke and mirrors (that may convince some), it is just bunk, it has no grounding in reality if it doesn't go back to the data.

 

[Gottservant]

Except that the data is not primary, if anything it is last, since any observation at all can change the nature of what it says.

Have you heard the phrase "it's all interpretation"? Well the rest of that goes "when it comes to data and observation".

I will think about what you have said, at this stage it sounds like you are confusing data with truth because observation is cool, which is not terribly convincing.

 

[variant]

Except that the data is not primary, if anything it is last, since any observation at all can change the nature of what it says.

This means that the observer and the data are not separate, not that data isn't the source of the observation and not the other way around.

As I said you misunderstand quantum mechanics. In QM observation is a physical action. What they have shown is that the observer is inexorably part of the data set.

Have you heard the phrase "it's all interpretation"? Well the rest of that goes "when it comes to data and observation".

Interpretations are descriptions of data. Interpreters are using their experience with data to make those descriptions.

Without a universe to observe, minds (such as ours) do not exist.

Minds exist to observe the universe, that is what they are for, to deal with the data at hand.

I will think about what you have said, at this stage it sounds like you are confusing data with truth because observation is cool, which is not terribly convincing.

My observation is that the observed is primary and the observer is secondary, which holds true consistently.

This means that if you have a philosophy that has completely removed itself from the data set it is trying to address, it becomes fairly useless and even, counterproductive.

In my philosophical experience people who wish to put the idea ahead of what it was meant to describe become very confused.