Do creationists critically examine their own ideas (re: creationism)?

[Tone]

Do you not see that both terms 'real world' and 'reality' convey meanings which are agreed upon by (english speaking) humans?

If this were not so, then how could we possibly understand eachother?
How could I possibly understand what you write at all, if this were not so?

I thought the "real world" was a reality T.V. show...

 

[Kylie]

Multiple eyewitnesses saying the same thing?

*Or one witness?

If you have multiple eyewitnesses who say the same thing and they haven't been led, then that makes it more likely that they are correct. At least in the parts they agree on.

 

[Tone]

that's going to dramatically colour their views and render their own interpretation of what happened as very unreliable.

Is it possible that the theory of evolution works this way with you?

 

[SelfSim]

If what we remember is in part invented by our brains, then those memories can not be taken as accurate.

And I say there is objective evidence that our brain is involved in everything we perceive .. (with no exceptions). Whereas there is no objective evidence that what 'is true' or what 'reality is' (which seem interchangable from what you've said previously), can be held as being separate from our perceptions.

When it comes to the science that is used to describe how the world works, we have mechanisms in place to eliminate this kind of error. We test it repeatedly. We make recordings of what happens so we aren't just relying on our memory. We get others to replicate our work.

This is of course the scientific method (no disagreements there). The method produces 'Objective Reality' via objectively recording (eg: using cameras etc), independent verification (using other minds to cross-check) and noting the consistencies (&/or discrepencies) in viewings of the same events ... all of which demonstrates a heavy reliance on the human brain (and no evidence of anything separate from that).

Objectivity is science's way of mediating individual perceptions throughout the process .. there is no reliance science has in believing that things exist beyond all those brain perceptions.

 

[Tone]

We get others to replicate our work.

I see...

*Convention...

**Your personal testimonies become in agreement...

 

[Kylie]

Via convention?

No, via repeatability.

Scientific evidence is not an argument from popularity. Scientists do not accept things as true just because lots of scientists think it's true. Scientists accept things as true because there is a great deal of evidence to support that it is true.

 

[SelfSim]

I thought the "real world" was a reality T.V. show...

Sure you are welcome to think that .. but when I ask you to describe your 'real world', you'll be using language .. and the same meanings.

 

[Kylie]

Is it possible that the theory of evolution works this way with you?

Possibly. But if that is the case, I would need to see an explanation for why so many tests have shown it to be true, particular when scientific testing often is done to find holes and weaknesses in the ideas being tested.

In short, if an idea is tested and searched for weaknesses and no weaknesses are found, then it becomes unlikely that the idea is the result of preconceived biases.

 

[Tone]

I see...

*Convention...

**Your personal testimonies become in agreement...

And don't you think that there are purely social (subjective) factors that may help this process along?

 

[Kylie]

And I say there is objective evidence that our brain is involved in everything we perceive .. (with no exceptions). Whereas there is no objective evidence that what 'is true' or what 'reality is' (which seem interchangable from what you've said previously), can be held as being separate from our perceptions.

And if all we had was one person's memories to rely on, I'd agree with you. But we don't. We have lots of people putting it to the test, and they are not just relying on their memories to do it.

I'll admit that it is technically possible that they may all be mistaken, but when we take into account the number of people involved and the detail with which their tests are recorded and scrutinised, it's extremely unlikely.

 

[Tone]

Sure you are welcome to think that .. but when I ask you to describe your 'real world', you'll be using language .. and the same meanings.

My "real world" is not necessarily reality.

 

[Tone]

an explanation for why so many tests have shown it to be true

Observer Bias / Research or Experimenter Bias: Definition, Examples, How to Avoid - Statistics How To?

 

[SelfSim]

No, via repeatability.
..
Scientific evidence is not an argument from popularity. Scientists do not accept things as true just because lots of scientists think it's true. Scientists accept things as true because there is a great deal of evidence to support that it is true.

On the whole, I agree.
Collective scientific thinking is aimed at making useful predictions by agreeing on what is consistent (and what isn't).
What is held as being 'true', are the evidenced results of the objective tests upon which there is no disagreement.

 

[Tone]

when we take into account the number of people involved and the detail with which their tests are recorded and scrutinised, it's extremely unlikely.

And yet when you talk about Christians,who are myriad in number...over thousands of years...you don't seem to have the same rationalization. How long has the theory of evolution been around and how many witnesses in favor...not many at all...relatively speaking.

 

[SelfSim]

My "real world"is not necessarily reality.

Makes no difference .. If I ask you to describe your reality, you'll be using language .. which then (re)creates your reality for me, via the meanings of your words.
You just demonstrated that!

 

[Kylie]

Observer Bias / Research or Experimenter Bias: Definition, Examples, How to Avoid - Statistics How To?

From the link:

Observer bias can be reduced or eliminated by:

• Ensuring that observers are well trained.
• Screening observers for potential biases.
• Having clear rules and procedures in place for the experiment.
• Making sure behaviors are clearly defined.
• Setting a time frame for: collecting data, for the duration of the experiment, and for experimental parts.

Science does all of these. I'm not aware that creationists do these, although if you can show me how they do, I'd be happy to reconsider my views.

 

[Tone]

No, via repeatability.

Scientific evidence is not an argument from popularity. Scientists do not accept things as true just because lots of scientists think it's true. Scientists accept things as true because there is a great deal of evidence to support that it is true.

Replace "Scientific" with "Christian" and now you know my position.

 

[Kylie]

And yet when you talk about Christians,who are myriad in number...over thousands of years...you don't seem to have the same rationalization. How long has the theory of evolution been around and how many witnesses in favor...not many at all...relatively speaking.

And how have these Christians worked to eliminate their personal biases from their conclusions?

 

[Tone]

From the link:



Science does all of these. I'm not aware that creationists do these, although if you can show me how they do, I'd be happy to reconsider my views.

Yeah, I realized that the link would be favorable to you, as scientists like to think they abide by that list of commands, however, that is the ideal...and all humans fall horribly short of these.

 

[Kylie]

Replace "Scientific" with "Christian" and now you know my position.

Okay. How do I repeat the tests that a Christian has done to verify their religious faith?