Dr Wise

[JohnR7]

(quote Dr Wise)I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant.

I would like to suggest three things.

1) The world or universe is real, it is not a illusion (it is not a joke).

2) Be truthful and honest (do not trick people).

3) Life is what you make it.

(quote Einstein) I am convinced that even much more is to be asserted: the concepts which arise in our thought and in our linguistic expressions are all -- when viewed logically -- the free creations of thought which cannot inductively be gained from sense experiences. This is not so easily noticed only because we have the habit of combining certain concepts and conceptual relations (propositions) so definitely which certain sense experiences that we do not become conscious of the gulf -- logically unbridgeable -- which separates the world of sensory experiences from the world of concepts and propositions.

3) Life is what you make it.

(quote Dr Wise) I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young.

According to Einsteins gulf, this can not be true statement. Because it does not take into consideration that data alone does not form our thoughts, opinions or concepts. Because our thoughts are formed from more than just the data or the evidence we see.

(quote Dr Wise) Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one.

Now we are beginning to build a bridge across Einstein's Gulf. It is not a direct observation of the world that indicates that the YEC is not correct. It is what we THINK we know about the world. Again, our thoughts are formed by more than just what we observe or our senses.

MY QUESTION IS:
IS our belief that the world is old based more on:
1) What we think we know about the world.
2) The majority of scientific evidence. OR
3) Both of these statement must be true.

 

[notto]

I'm fairly certain that the argument that the earth is old can be built on purely deductive reasoning, therefore, Einstein's Gulf does not apply.

The argument that the earth is old is not a concept that arises in our thoughts, it is a deduction from our senses, not new knowledge or assertions about the physical entities that are studied to make the argument. It does not assert beyond the premises.

" I am convinced that even much more is to be asserted: the concepts which arise in our thought and in our linguistic expressions are all -- when viewed logically -- the free creations of thought which cannot inductively be gained from sense experiences."

The argument that the earth is old is not a free creation of thought and the attempt at the argument is not inductively gained from sense experiences.

I still can't see the relationship between Einstein's gulf and scientific investigation and theries. Einstein's gulf is a LOGICAL one, and it does not provide a problem for determining what is real and accurate.

I'm also fairly certain that John is trying to use Einstein's gulf in an area that it does not address. Scientific theories are not abstract and therefor Einstein's gulf does not apply.

It is an interesting conversation, but I feel that that it does not address Einstein's gulf in the context of Einsteins statements.

 

[JohnR7]

I'm fairly certain that the argument that the earth is old can be built on purely deductive reasoning, therefore, Einstein's Gulf does not apply.

What is "deductive reasoning"? Can you show me how you use this process to determine that the earth is old?

My car has a odometer, that measures how many miles my car has been driven. As far as I know, there is no odometer to keep track of how many times the earth has traveled around the Sun.

The argument that the earth is old is not a concept that arises in our thoughts, it is a deduction from our senses, not new knowledge or assertions about the physical entities that are studied to make the argument. It does not assert beyond the premises.

Our senses. Ok, how do our senses perceive how many times the earth has traveled around the Sun?

I still can't see the relationship between Einstein's gulf and scientific investigation and theries. Einstein's gulf is a LOGICAL one, and it does not provide a problem for determining what is real and accurate.

No one is saying that there is a problem. We are just looking at the logic & reason behind "scientific investigation and theries". Just what is the methoid Science uses to arrive at their conclusions? What assumptions do they make. For example I suggested that you have to assume that the universe is real and not an illusion. We can not prove that, but we have to assume that, or we would not be able to proceed.

I'm also fairly certain that John is trying to use Einstein's gulf in an area that it does not address.

You keep getting stuck on the idea that Einsteins gulf deals with abstract ideas. You need to get past that to see that it also deals with what our senses can experance. All he is saying is that the gulf is obvious when dealing with the abstract. He feels we are not aware of the gulf when dealing with what our sense tell us.

Look at a placebo for example. If a patient is convinced that the doctor has confidence in the pill he is taking, then the placebo will be more effective, then if the doctor had no confidence in that pill. That is why they need to run double blind studys.

Or look at jeolusy. If a man takes his wife to a party and he observes her talking to another man. Then jeolusy can effect his senses to where he thinks he sees her flirting, when that may not be true at all. His ability to be able to observe is being distorted by his emotions.

(quote einstein)we have the habit of combining certain concepts and conceptual relations (propositions) so definitely which certain sense experiences that we do not become conscious of the gulf

Clearly Einstein is saying that we are so much in the habit of combining "propositions" with our sense experience, so that we are not aware of this gulf that he feels exists. We only become aware of it when we are dealing with the abstract and abstract thinking.

 

[notto]

John,

Einstein is not saying that anything we cannot observe directly with our senses is suspect. He is not saying that we cannot know what is real or make valid deductive and bullet proof arguments.

He is saying something very different. He is saying that we cannot create new knowledge without using our senses. He is saying that we cannot come up with an original concept or thought that is not based on our experience of our senses. We cannot imagine a color that is something we haven't seen or that is not simply a concept that is based on colors we have seen before.

You say that it does not deal only with the abstract but that is exactly the issue that Einstein and Russel are addressing. How do we create abstract or inductive concepts? He is saying that all of these come from previous sensory observations and the knowledge we gain from them. If something is not abstract or inductive, then Einsteins gulf does not apply because there is no gulf. When we are sensing something directly, we are not forming new ideas, we are experiencing it directly, regardless of how we are sensing or observing the phenomena (through tools, or through reflection, or through macro phenomena that are constructs of micro phenomena).

This has nothing to do with scientific theory or the validity of the scientific conclusion that the world is old. The conclusion that the world is old is based on a logical construction of premises that if proven true lead to the logical conclusion that the earth is old.

You accurately pointed out that YEC base their conclusions on something other than evidence. They do not accept the premises that construct the argument for an old earth and therefore do not accept the conclusion. They do not do this using additional logical constructs and the way they approach the problem is a logical fallicy. They do NOT accept a world that can't play tricks on us.

Deductive Logic and an Old Earth (each of these could be explanded to much detail and each premise could be broken down into its own premises that are logical constructs in themselves).

1) If rocks are old, then they will have certain combinations of mother/daughter products due to radioactive decay
2) Rocks have certain combinations of mother/daughter products
3) The rocks are old

1) If the earth is old, we will see layers of rock, sediment, and deposits one on top of the other that exibit evidence that each layer existed for vast amounts of time as evidenced by the trees, animals, and erosion in each layer.
2) Rock layers exist one on top of another that exibit evidnece that each layer existed for vast amounts of time as evidenced byt he trees, animals, and erosion in each layer.
3) The earth is old.

 

[Jet Black]

hoe many times does Einstein's Gulf have to be explained to you John?

 

[JohnR7]

hoe many times does Einstein's Gulf have to be explained to you John?

I understand it, but other people have a different understanding about it than I do. This happens all the time with my wife. She sees things one way, I see them another, but we are both looking at the same thing. Then I will ask my son and he says your both right. He can see it from my perspective and from her perspective. We just have a different way of looking at things sometimes.

Here is a good web page that explains the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning.

http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/dedind.htm

 

[lucaspa]

I would like to suggest three things.

1) The world or universe is real, it is not a illusion (it is not a joke).

2) Be truthful and honest (do not trick people).

3) Life is what you make it.


According to Einsteins gulf, this can not be true statement. Because it does not take into consideration that data alone does not form our thoughts, opinions or concepts.

In science, the data alone does form our thoughts, opinions, and concepts.

"...what we learned in school about the scientific method can be reduced to two basic principles.
"1. All our theory, ideas, preconceptions, instincts, and prejudices about how things logically ought to be, how they in all fairness ought to be, or how we would prefer them to be, must be tested against external reality --what they *really* are. How do we determine what they really are? Through direct experience of the universe itself.
2. The testing, the experience, has to be public, repeatable -- in the public domain. If the results are derived only once, if the experience is that of only one person and isn't available to others who attempt the same test or observation under approximately the same conditions, science must reject the findings as invalid -- not necessarily false, but uselss. One-time, private experience is not acceptable." Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, pg. 38.

See? Our thoughts, opinions, and concepts have to be tested against external reality -- the universe. If those thoughts, opinions, and concepts don't match our experience of the universe, then they are wrong.

Wise is saying that what he WANTS to be true -- his literal interpretation of Genesis 1 -- is true despite what the universe (data) says. So Wise is placing his prejudice above what is real.

Now, Wise's statement cannot be true because experience of the universe shows it to be false.

 

[lucaspa]

What is "deductive reasoning"? Can you show me how you use this process to determine that the earth is old?

The "if ... then" statement is deductive reasoning.

IF the earth is old, THEN there will be no short lived radioisotopes that are not generated from other isotopes. That is an example. When tested like that, the "then ... " is confirmed. This supports the idea of an old earth.

However, deductive reasoning definitely shows a YOUNG earth to be wrong. IF the earth is young, THEN there should be short lived radioisotopes not formed from other isotopes. The complete absence of those isotopes shows the earth is NOT young.

What assumptions do they make. For example I suggested that you have to assume that the universe is real and not an illusion. We can not prove that, but we have to assume that, or we would not be able to proceed.

I know I've posted this to you before, John, but LISTEN this time, will you?

Both science and Christianity have assumptions about the nature of the universe. Christianity derives the assumptions from the nature of God. So BOTH science and Christianity have the SAME assumptions.

Here you go:

"The search for truth in science is based on agreement concerning just such basic assumptions. It is a gamble, if you will; a gamble that certain articles of faith which cannot be proved by science are nevertheless well-founded enough to provide a springboard for all scientific investigation. It is intriguing to find that religion shares much of science's basic view of reality. How is it that two approaches, science and religion, both claiming to be avenues of truth but in many ways reputed to clash with one another, should be in agreement on so basic a level? ...
"Scientists of the seventeenth century, most but not all of whom had religious views closer to my grandparents that to Hawking ... developed a procedure that would systematically separate what is true from what is not true. That is the procedure that we call the scientific method. It has served us splendidly ever since its birth and made our spectacular technology possible. Whatever the scientific method's origins or its philosophical foundations, we have no cause to doubt its usefulness.
"Depending upon whether we believe in God, you or I might leave God out of the following." (I put the comments related to deity in [ ] to separate them.)

"1. The universe is *rational*, [reflecting both the intellect and the faithfulness of its Creator]. It has pattern, symmetry, and predictability to it. Effect follows cause in a dependable manner. For these reasons, it is not futile to try to study the universe.
"2. The universe is *accessible* to us, not a closed book but one open to our investigation. [Minds created in the image of the mind of God can understand the universe God created.]
"3. The universe has *contingency* to it, meaning that things could have been different from the way we find them, and chance [and/or choice] played a role in making them what they are. Whether this is contingency in the sense that chance [and choice] play an on-going role within the universe, or merely in the sense that there was a initial chance occurrence [or choice] which brought about this universe instead of a different one or none at all, one cannot learn about the universe by pure thought and logic alone. Knowledge comes by observing and testing it.
"4. There is such a thing as *objective* reality. [Because God exists and sees and knows everything, there is a truth behind everything.] Reality has a hard edge to it and does not cave in or shift like sands in the dessert in response to our opinions, perceptions, preferences, beliefs, or anything else. Reality is not a democracy. There is something definite, some raw material, out there for us to study.
"5. There is *unity* to the universe. There is an explanation -- [one God], one equation, or one system of logic -- which is fundamental to everything. The universe operates by underlying laws which do not change in an arbitrary fashion from place to place, from minute to minute, or even millenium to millenium. There are no loose ends, no real contradictions. At some deep level, everything fits."
"Divorced from the assumption that there is a God, these five assumptions about the universe, these five articles of faith, if you will -- rationality, accessibility, contingency, objectivity, and unity -- continue to underlie the practice of science. Some would argue that upon them depends all possibility of doing science as we know it. The best argument for their validity is not that they are obvious but that the scientific method seems to work so well! The proof (dangerous word) is in the pudding." Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations pg. 8-9

You keep getting stuck on the idea that Einsteins gulf deals with abstract ideas.

You need to get past the blindness that evolution has no supporting evidence. The only gulf that exists is in YOUR knowledge.

 

[lucaspa]

(quote Einstein) I am convinced that even much more is to be asserted: the concepts which arise in our thought and in our linguistic expressions are all -- when viewed logically -- the free creations of thought which cannot inductively be gained from sense experiences. This is not so easily noticed only because we have the habit of combining certain concepts and conceptual relations (propositions) so definitely which certain sense experiences that we do not become conscious of the gulf -- logically unbridgeable -- which separates the world of sensory experiences from the world of concepts and propositions.

OK, let me translate for you.

What Einstein is saying is that hypotheses/theories are INITIALLY products of our imaginations. That is, they don't arise solely from compiling facts and then the hypothesis is just an obvious conclusion from the facts.

Rather, what happens FIRST is this application of IMAGINATION to come up with a hypothesis. Our imagination may be triggered by some sensory experience or other, which is why we think the hypothesis comes from data, but in reality the initial data is not enough to justify the hypothesis. The hypothesis is imagination.

Now, remember that Einstein was a theoretical physicist. HE never tested any of his hypotheses or theories, so he was removed from the connection of theories to sensory experiences. All Einstein ever conducted was thought experiments and mathematical testing -- to see if the math were internally consistent.

So Einstein missed the connection between ideas and sensory input. The connection is TESTING. IF the hypothesis is true, THEN it will have some consequence in the universe. That CONSEQUENCE can be experienced by our senses.

So, throw out the hypothesis, then TEST it against what our senses find. If what we find is consistent with the hypothesis, then keep it. If instead what we find goes against the hypothesis, then throw the hypothesis out.

However, since Einstein was NEVER an experimentalist, he quite naturally missed the testing part. Although he would throw out ideas if his thought experiments showed them to be wrong.

 

[MartinM]

The "if ... then" statement is deductive reasoning.

IF the earth is old, THEN there will be no short lived radioisotopes that are not generated from other isotopes. That is an example. When tested like that, the "then ... " is confirmed. This supports the idea of an old earth.

To be pedantic (again), this isn't true of deduction. The confirmation of the 'then' doesn't tell us anything about the status of the 'if'. Support for the old Earth comes from induction.

Of course, deduction still allows the falsification of the 'if' through falsification of the 'then', as you state.