Debating Creationists

[Gottservant]

No, what you said makes sense until you consider infinity, if there is infinity then there is not telling what data is relevant without a principle. Therefore principle is primary because you are part of infinity. If you were part of a finite context, then yes, data may be primary in that context.

I get the feeling you are trying to put me in a box you exist in.

 

[variant]

No, what you said makes sense until you consider infinity, if there is infinity then there is not telling what data is relevant without a principle. Therefore principle is primary because you are part of infinity. If you were part of a finite context, then yes, data may be primary in that context.

Infinity is just an idea, like the rest, an extrapolation of the data we experience.

How do you think it came to be thought?

Can we verify that infinity exists with either principle or via experimentation? Not that I know.

I get the feeling you are trying to put me in a box you exist in.

What you are experiencing is the feeling of someone who understands your argument and is countering it.

I am actually trying to cut down on the aforementioned confusion you are experiencing of getting descriptions mixed up with the described.

You've got your philosophy running backwards in an unhelpful way.

 

[Gottservant]

You haven't looked up at the stars? Or wait, you have but you still see finitude?

Perhaps you can explain why thinking of principle you can formulate both conjecture and expectation, but looking at data you can only make observation.

Don't you see, you are warping this conversation around the idea that I can be persuaded, not that I can be told the truth?

You also believe the universe began with nothing, am I right?

 

[variant]

You haven't looked up at the stars? Or wait, you have but you still see finitude?

All I am capable of seeing is finiteness, but as I said before, infinity is an idea extrapolated from our finite experience.

Perhaps you can explain why thinking of principle you can formulate both conjecture and expectation, but looking at data you can only make observation.

Because once you've made observations you can extrapolate them into principles.

Don't you see, you are warping this conversation around the idea that I can be persuaded, not that I can be told the truth?

Our discussion is rhetorical. I thought you and others could use some perspective.

You also believe the universe began with nothing, am I right?

I don't know how the universe began.

 

[Gottservant]

I've given it some thought and I've realized that I'm only coming at this from one angle, but there are two.
I've been saying that without principles you can't have an inference that fits the data.
But actually, without principles you can't connect observation to the data in the first place.

Try it, imagine you have no principles and tell me what you observe?

Nothing, right? Because only a principle can define something variable OR inferrable for the sake of observation. There are two sides to the same coin.

The same can be said of stopping observation or changing it. Seriously, test me.

 

[variant]

I've given it some thought and I've realized that I'm only coming at this from one angle, but there are two.
I've been saying that without principles you can't have an inference that fits the data.
But actually, without principles you can't connect observation to the data in the first place.

Try it, imagine you have no principles and tell me what you observe?

Nothing, right? Because only a principle can define something variable OR inferrable for the sake of observation. There are two sides to the same coin.

The same can be said of stopping observation or changing it. Seriously, test me.

Isn't just about me here.

Unthinking life observes data all the time.

That's because it is the more basic thing to inferring abstract principles.

Also, my argument is that the data is primary, not that principles aren't used so be more careful in your logical jumps.

 

[Gottservant]

Also, my argument is that the data is primary, not that principles aren't used so be more careful in your logical jumps.

Neatly turning the tables on me, won't work, sorry.

By showing that principles are essential to the observation of data, we in fact show that principles are primary.

But I was using logic and reason, you were undoubtedly using inference and expectation.

Sadly, I doubt you are convinced even by plain empirical evidence.

 

[variant]

Neatly turning the tables on me, won't work, sorry.

By showing that principles are essential to the observation of data, we in fact show that principles are primary.

Sorry that simply simply doesn't follow, it's a bit like saying that eyes are essential to the process of seeing therefore they are primary to light.

Data exists before and is the reason for our kind of observation so it is primary.

Principles are descriptions of data, not the other way around.

 

[Gottservant]

What you are saying is like saying "Just because I can see the light, doesn't mean it's light".

I mean if you don't want to reason, you should have said so from the outset, I could have avoided all this.

You don't even have evidence that "data got there first" you are just assuming that.

 

[variant]

What you are saying is like saying "Just because I can see the light, doesn't mean it's light".

I mean if you don't want to reason, you should have said so from the outset, I could have avoided all this.

You don't even have evidence that "data got there first" you are just assuming that.

We know that data predates principle unless you are willing to entertain the idea that the universe popped into existence the moment someone started to think about it.

But you've wandered pretty far from any meaning in THIS thread when you want to debate baseline epistemology because I mentioned that rhetorical arguments completely divorced from describing data are meaningless.

 

[Gottservant]

So affirmation means nothing to you?

 

[variant]

So affirmation means nothing to you?

I'm not following your meaning, you should expand on it.

 

[Gottservant]

I'm not following your meaning, you should expand on it.

Well rhetoric is how you discuss what people find affirming...

...there is too much data for that on its own to be affirming, so people use rhetoric to find strength in the data

if you are to [bless and do not curse] yourself to see that, you are out of touch with the people (which science is supposed to be for, FYI)

 

[variant]

Well rhetoric is how you discuss what people find affirming...

...there is too much data for that on its own to be affirming, so people use rhetoric to find strength in the data

People affirm a lot of factually wrong ideas (ideas in conflict with the facts) so how you tell what is correct is to evaluate concepts with the facts they attempt to explain.

This is not optional, it really is the (only) way to evaluate a theory (which is what a debate about evolution with a creationist would entail if it were worthwhile).

if you are to [bless and do not curse] yourself to see that, you are out of touch with the people (which science is supposed to be for, FYI)

Rudeness aside, what does being in touch with people have to do with debating people who aren't in touch with reality?

 

[Gottservant]

People affirm a lot of factually wrong ideas (ideas in conflict with the facts) so how you tell what is correct is to evaluate concepts with the facts they attempt to explain.

Yes but if it's factually wrong, you can't easily affirm it, can you? That's the point. It's evident in principle long before it's evident in fact. As I said, there is far too much data for that on its own to be an answer to anything.

 

[variant]

Yes but if it's factually wrong, you can't easily affirm it, can you? That's the point. It's evident in principle long before it's evident in fact. As I said, there is far too much data for that on its own to be an answer to anything.

Not easily but people try.

You can jump to conclusions long before anything is "evident" but those rationalizations are extrapolations of previous data.

Short term creationism long preceded biological evolution for instance, so what is "evident" in principle is often contradicted by data.

This makes data the primary of reality and our thoughts about it secondary.

It also makes ideas that can not be contradicted by data (theism for instance) inherently questionable.

 

[Gottservant]

This makes data the primary of reality and our thoughts about it secondary.

Yes but what you are saying is "something can be the primary exemplar of its own set (the set of all somethings), therefore we don't need to think about it" yet how can this be? Something cannot be part of a set and the definition of the set at the same. If it were I could be the definition of myself, even when I don't know who I am, which is ridiculous! I may be who I am, but I am not the definition of who I am, just because I am who I am.

You want things to be simpler than they are in reality, so you make equations between how you would like them to be and why they would be that way, if it was all up to you.

Only principle is impartial, you are losing your objectivity.

 

[variant]

Yes but what you are saying is "something can be the primary exemplar of its own set (the set of all somethings), therefore we don't need to think about it" yet how can this be? Something cannot be part of a set and the definition of the set at the same. If it were I could be the definition of myself, even when I don't know who I am, which is ridiculous! I may be who I am, but I am not the definition of who I am, just because I am who I am.

Are you quoting the Russell paradox? Because that doesn't seem to be anything like what I am arguing.

I am saying that data is primary to description, and that all thought is descriptive and therefore derivative.

Principles are thoughts, they describe data.

You want things to be simpler than they are in reality, so you make equations between how you would like them to be and why they would be that way, if it was all up to you.

All descriptions are simpler than ultimate reality, I actually quite throughly recognize this fact. Principles are descriptive and derivative and much simpler than the data set (by necessity) because you can not describe the entire data set.

Descriptions (principles in this case) are more limited by definition because they have to focus, where as data, it's predicate is capable of being so complicated that everything in the universe would need to be described in order for that description to be completely accurate.

We can not possibly describe the entire universe with a principle so the universe must be primary to principle.

Only principle is impartial, you are losing your objectivity.

Principle can not be impartial it is a description (it requires a subject to do the describing). It should attempt to be as impartial as possible to be objective as possible but it is most likely to do that when it more accurately describes/models the data (that's how we can tell).

 

[Gottservant]

If you can't understand quantum mechanics, so help you.

All creation begins with an observer, and what is an observer but a start and end point? Are you saying data is its own start and end point?

No, I think I am asking you to make a leap of faith you don't want to make. As far as you are concerned you are the star of your own data set and everything you see explains why you are there, because its all about you. Forgive me if I dismiss this as narcissitic.

To be honest I'm not really sure how to respond anymore, I have told you its a logical fallacy and you reply "yes, but at least its logical". You can probably see why I'm frustrated.

 

[variant]

If you can't understand quantum mechanics, so help you.

This ought to be good.

All creation begins with an observer, and what is an observer but a start and end point? Are you saying data is its own start and end point?

Unsupported. The only observers we know about that observe like us are us, and we definitely observe a world of data.

Data precedes our thoughts about it.

No, I think I am asking you to make a leap of faith you don't want to make. As far as you are concerned you are the star of your own data set and everything you see explains why you are there, because its all about you. Forgive me if I dismiss this as narcissitic.

I don't make leaps of faith. It's absurd that you think they are useful.

Not that I made any point about everything being about me (I honestly haven't)....

Not that you seem to be understanding anything I've said...

But, do you generally dismiss ideas because of how they make you feel about people? (or in this case because they prompt you to jump to conclusions about people)?

To be honest I'm not really sure how to respond anymore, I have told you its a logical fallacy and you reply "yes, but at least its logical". You can probably see why I'm frustrated.

It's not a fallacy at all. You've no more shown that then you've shown you understand quantum mechanics (I'm disappointed that we haven't really strayed there in this post).

You also seem to think quantum mechanics supports Berkley's style of idealism so you're about as many centuries behind in your philosophy as you are in your scientific grasp of evolutionary biology.

Feel free to not respond to me anymore, you're rather tiresome, stubborn and you aren't introducing any ideas I've not seen before (so also boring).