Invalid Arguments

[KWCrazy]

There is a clear hierarchy in the sciences as well, due to the material different disciplines cover and how they are interconnected.

No, sorry, there isn't.
Science is the study of the physical world around us. It is not the conclusion, but the study.
It's easy to demonstrate cause and effect in simple physics, but not so easy to study cause and effect between molested children and serial killers. Not all molested children become serial killers, but most serial killers had traumatic childhoods.

How does that indicate a hierarchy? It's simply another field of study. Interestingly, physics is the most violated field in the Bible. For example, in the Bible an axhead floats. There is no explanation for this found in natural law. Therefore the conclusions are A the statement is incorrect and it never happened, or B the event happened outside of natural law.

So let's stay with this one miracle for a moment. Miracles are, by definition, violations of natural law that have no explanation but a supernatural intervention. However, in the distorted world view of the naturalist there is only natural law so you would deny that such a thing is possible. However denial of an incident doesn't explain the incident if it, in fact, happened. So if an axhead floated and science can't validate or invalidate the claim the failure rests not with the science but with the notion that every action is regulated by physical laws.

Beyond that, the geologist is no more or less respectable than the marine biologist. Each has their field of study. Each field of study approaches things in more or less the same way; making and chronicling discoveries for the next generation. It's hubris to presume that one field is more dignified or relevant than the other. All fields study various aspects of the creation.

As for macro VS micro evolution, those terms are misleading. Adaptation happens. It is a conservative process where information is supported or extinguished, but the end result is a net loss of information. Evolution requires the addition of new information and the encoding it into the reproductive system. Evolution has never been observed. The only changes we've ever seen have been changes with the information which already exists. Dog ears can go from short to floppy, but breeding doesn't change their basic function. A small dog is no more or less a canine than a wolf, only repeatedly inbred to make it smaller and less aggressive. That doesn't work with humans. Just watch Deliverance.

 

[Everybodyknows]

I am not a scientist, and I am by no means well versed in quantum mechanics - that´s why my response "yes" needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
To answer more generally: I am convinced that methodological naturalism is about to face the borders of its explanatory power and to demonstrate the limitations of binary thinking (and, yes, I expect quantum mechanics to play a part in that).
This, however, doesn´t mean that methodological naturalism falsifies itself - if only for the reason that it isn´t based on the axiom of metaphysical naturalism, in the first place. Methodological naturalism means just being clear about the field you are investigating. It´s almost like deciding to first look for the lost key in your house - which doesn´t mean you make the claim that it must be in your house. Deciding that "this is gonna be my method" isn´t epistemologically axiomatic. Methodological naturalism has been proven extremely useful and has gotten us a long way; if, at some point, it manages to falsify metaphysical naturalism I will consider this another proof for its great usefulness.
(Btw. I think that metaphysical naturalism has long been falsified logically - but that´s another can of worms).
The big question is: Once we have reached that point - will we be able to come up with a method (similarly useful as the scientific method has been) for exploring these new fields?
Or, IOW, does analogous thinking allow for a systematic methodology? (I doubt it, at this point - but what do I know?).

How could Methodological Naturalism falsify Metaphysical Naturalism and what would be the consequence of this?

Yes, oftentimes they aren´t that arbitrary. Oftentimes they are inevitable by virtue of the method chosen. I.e. if I decide to articulate my view by means of language, there´s no way around accepting the axiom "Something exists" as well as the basic rules of binary logic. This doesn´t have to do much with intuition, it has to do with the nature of the frame of reference that I have decided to accept in the given situation.

They may be intuitive, but I do not really believe that that´s the reason why they are so broadly accepted. The reason is: It doesn´t take a lot cognitive effort to know that they are inevitable (within the chosen frame of reference, that is). That "Nothing exists" is an epistemological dead end jumps right in your face with whatever first step you make, based on it.

This is where my thinking differs from you. You seem to think that our chosen method determines what it's inevitable axioms are. This seems somewhat backwards to me. I'm of the thinking that our methods arise out of the rules we assume out of the intuition of our subjective experience of the world. For example, our primate ancestors didn't sit around and suddenly think "we are going explore our world by means of binary language! Lets see now... what are our inevitable axioms?". Language itself evolved over time as a means of communication, and as such it carries the assumptions of its basic rules with it, which have arisen out of our experiential intuition. So what I'm trying to say is the rules were already there in some way long before Aristotle and Co formalised them. Therefore when you say "they aren't claims about reality" I know what you mean but in some sense I disagree because I think they have some sort of relationship with reality because they arise out of our experience of it.

 

[quatona]

How could Methodological Naturalism falsify Metaphysical Naturalism and what would be the consequence of this?

I could give you one or two - hypothetical - examples. Is that what you are asking for?
- The mere fact that we can´t observe a phenomenon in its immediacy (i.e. an unobserved phenomenon) implies the possibility that our "observing" has an effect on the phenomenon.
- If a phenomenon turns out to escape or resist any mechanistic cause-effect explanation, we would be pretty close.
- If science succeeds in reaching one of its most prominent goals (finding the smallest, undivisble, unstructured particle), metaphysical naturalism will collapse immediately.

This is where my thinking differs from you. You seem to think that our chosen method determines what it's inevitable axioms are. This seems somewhat backwards to me. I'm of the thinking that our methods arise out of the rules we assume out of the intuition of our subjective experience of the world. For example, our primate ancestors didn't sit around and suddenly think "we are going explore our world by means of binary language! Lets see now... what are our inevitable axioms?". Language itself evolved over time as a means of communication, and as such it carries the assumptions of its basic rules with it, which have arisen out of our experiential intuition. So what I'm trying to say is the rules were already there in some way long before Aristotle and Co formalised them. Therefore when you say "they aren't claims about reality" I know what you mean but in some sense I disagree because I think they have some sort of relationship with reality because they arise out of our experience of it.

Ok - I would partly agree with some things you say here.
But first off: "experiental intuition" appears to be an oxymoron, to me.
As far as I can tell, there isn´t an alternative to binary language. Language is, by it´s very nature, binary. It separates, distinguishes, creates categories - necessarily. Thus, once people came to use language as describing reality, they had to submit to this limitation. (And, indeed, I don´t consider the acquirition of language - be it ontogenetically or phylogenetically - a development that increases insight. Quite the opposite. ). IOW, the alternative would be to remain silent.
Let´s, though, not forget that there are non-binary communication means, and that there has also been a long tradition in using language in a non-binary way - story- and myth-telling, metaphores, analogies, poems etc. This may even have preceeded the supposedly "exact" use of language. Plus, there are cultures that don´t seem to rely on the epistemological power of binary language in the same way Western philosophy does.

So, where we agree: The fact that humans almost universally rely on binary speaking (and consequently binary thinking) as epistemologically useful tells us something - i.e. it tells us that this choice is probably not nilly-willy arbirtrary, but that there is a preceeding cause for it.
Where we seem to disagree: I don´t believe that this tells us something about the way the world works. It tells us something about how our minds work and, as you say, the way we experience the world. About our inner make-up, if you will. In about the same way I don´t believe that our value judgements tell us something about inherent values of things or actions; they tell us something about our needs.
I don´t see that as a problem, btw.

 

[tas8831]

Speaking of invalid arguments, I see that xinghua is making his 'organic robot proved ID' thing over on Larry Moran's blog. It is going about as is expected of such arguments.

 

[tas8831]

The idea that a deity would be "beyond the universe" isn't in any religious texts, and that goes for the bible.

If Brahm, YHVH, Allah (whatever the name assigned) brought forth the Universe, then God cannot be anything else but beyond the Universe, since when the Universe was not, this God was. I will not try to determine God via the scientific method which with its limitations can only describe and discover things within that which is called Universe. It would be even less likely than a single celled organism trying to define humanity.

Imagine a tiny speck in a small limited space within a dark box, with seriously limited perceptual abilities and a few intelligently designed instruments to extend them, trying to explain "outside the box". The only way this speck could even remotely grasp "outside the box", would be if whatever or whoever is outside the box revealed this to them.

Such is the nature of materialist reductionism. It can only be truly meaningful when the reductionist realizes and admits the limitations of the methods they use and allows for possibilities beyond themselves and their ability to comprehend.

Off topic.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, sorry, there isn't.
Science is the study of the physical world around us. It is not the conclusion, but the study.

-_- I never said science was just conclusions. I'd say a decent way of defining it would be "a standardized method by which to learn more about the world".

It's easy to demonstrate cause and effect in simple physics, but not so easy to study cause and effect between molested children and serial killers.

Which is part of the reason that physics is much higher on the science hierarchy than psychology.

How does that indicate a hierarchy? It's simply another field of study. Interestingly, physics is the most violated field in the Bible. For example, in the Bible an axhead floats. There is no explanation for this found in natural law.

-_- there are a few very easy explanations for how an ax-head could float. For example, buoyancy. If the ax-head had a high enough surface area, it wouldn't matter if the material itself was more dense than water. It's the same principle by which metal boats float.

Therefore the conclusions are A the statement is incorrect and it never happened, or B the event happened outside of natural law.

Nah, I just gave a decent explanation of how an ax-head floating doesn't necessarily require physics be defied.

So let's stay with this one miracle for a moment. Miracles are, by definition, violations of natural law that have no explanation but a supernatural intervention. However, in the distorted world view of the naturalist there is only natural law so you would deny that such a thing is possible.

You are assuming that I am a "naturalist", though you aren't actually using the correct word. You mean to use the word materialist. A naturalist is a person that studies the history of nature, and a materialist is a person who supports the theory that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. Unfortunately for you, I'm not a materialist.

However denial of an incident doesn't explain the incident if it, in fact, happened. So if an axhead floated and science can't validate or invalidate the claim the failure rests not with the science but with the notion that every action is regulated by physical laws.

Again, an ax-head floating isn't much of a miracle.

Beyond that, the geologist is no more or less respectable than the marine biologist. Each has their field of study. Each field of study approaches things in more or less the same way; making and chronicling discoveries for the next generation. It's hubris to presume that one field is more dignified or relevant than the other. All fields study various aspects of the creation.

I never said that physics was more relevant than, say, chemistry. Only that physics has the potential to have higher accuracy in its theories than chemistry does.

As for macro VS micro evolution, those terms are misleading. Adaptation happens.

Definition of adaptation: in biology, process by which an animal or plant species becomes fitted to its environment; it is the result of natural selection's acting upon heritable variation. It's a consequence of evolution, not a separate process from it.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

The answer is: "Axioms" and "unfalsifiable claims" are completely different concepts.
So the question "What about axioms?" in response to a statement about "unfalsifiable claims" is an obvious change of topic.

While I am tempted to just give up on this topic, and I apologise in advance, I can't help but ask one last question because I'm generally a tenacious kid that asks "why mum? But why mum? yeah, but why though?" until I'm hit with a wooden spoon.... *ahem* anyways, "completely different concepts" in my mind is too strong.

From what I can make out you define "unfalsifiable claim" as something like "my brother lives on mars" or "what we call the colour green is actually my friend Boris influencing everyones perception". But in this set of ideas are axioms. Philosophical axioms might be inevitable, or intuitive, or whatever, but they are unfalsifiable. So philosophical axioms are a subset of unfalsifiable claims. Do you agree?

What this means is that some unfalsifiable claims are actually really helpful because axioms are helpful.

 

[quatona]

While I am tempted to just give up on this topic, and I apologise in advance, I can't help but ask one last question because I'm generally a tenacious kid that asks "why mum? But why mum? yeah, but why though?" until I'm hit with a wooden spoon.... *ahem* anyways, "completely different concepts" in my mind is too strong.

From what I can make out you define "unfalsifiable claim" as something like "my brother lives on mars" or "what we call the colour green is actually my friend Boris influencing everyones perception". But in this set of ideas are axioms. Philosophical axioms might be inevitable, or intuitive, or whatever, but they are unfalsifiable. So philosophical axioms are a subset of unfalsifiable claims. Do you agree?

Yup, I can go with this definition quite fine.
I don´t know what the question "What about axioms?" in response to a statement about unfalsifiable claims is supposed to ask for.
Since they are unfalsifiable claims, then - just like other unfalsifiable claims - they cannot be tested, by definition of "unfalsifiable".

What this means is that some unfalsifiable claims are actually really helpful because axioms are helpful.

Why sure, axioms can be helpful. I even pointed out that often they are inevitable or unavoidable.

Now please back to the question how all this stuff about a small subset "axioms" is the starting point to an answer to my question about the entire set "unfalsifiable claims". I still don´t get it.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Yup, I can go with this definition quite fine.
I don´t know what the question "What about axioms?" in response to a statement about unfalsifiable claims is supposed to ask for.
Since they are unfalsifiable claims, then - just like other unfalsifiable claims - they cannot be tested, by definition of "unfalsifiable".


Why sure, axioms can be helpful. I even pointed out that often they are inevitable or unavoidable.

Now please back to the question how all this stuff about a small subset "axioms" is the starting point to an answer to my question about the entire set "unfalsifiable claims". I still don´t get it.

Great! Well to me at least, I feel we are on the same page at last. So axioms, as subsets of unfalsifiable claims, are "tested" by how well they achieve their aims. The fact that they are helpful is important because some unfalsifiable claims can help us understand what we are studying. In math we ask, does the axiom help describe the system? Then bringing this back to all unfalsifiable claims, perhaps we can use the same evaluation method for some greater subset of claims: Evaluate the credibility of the claim by evaluating the inevitable consequences of the claim. Are the consequences helpful? Do they help describe the system? I'm thinking there is some greater subset of unfalsifiable claims that should not be just written off with a shrug of the shoulders.

 

[Everybodyknows]

- If science succeeds in reaching one of its most prominent goals (finding the smallest, undivisble, unstructured particle), metaphysical naturalism will collapse immediately.

This topic is beyond my level, but could you explain why this is the case? I understand what metaphysical and methodological naturalism are, but not in enough depth to see how this conclusion follows.

Ok - I would partly agree with some things you say here.
But first off: "experiental intuition" appears to be an oxymoron, to me.

Perhaps tautological. I don't see why it's oxymoronic? Basically all of our intuition about the world is gained from our experience of the world, is it not? With the terms 'experiential intuition' and 'subjective experience' I am just trying to qualify that our intuitive understanding of reality is limited by our minds and senses. In other words, our formal rules are statements about our perception of reality rather than statements about objective reality.

As far as I can tell, there isn´t an alternative to binary language. Language is, by it´s very nature, binary. It separates, distinguishes, creates categories - necessarily. Thus, once people came to use language as describing reality, they had to submit to this limitation. (And, indeed, I don´t consider the acquirition of language - be it ontogenetically or phylogenetically - a development that increases insight. Quite the opposite. ). IOW, the alternative would be to remain silent.

I might even argue one step further that binary thinking precedes language rather than being a consequence of it. For example, even some animals can separate, distinguish and create categories in their minds without the use of language. They can distinguish between food and not-food, predatory and harmless animals, etc. Dogs have even been shown to be able to do some basic counting and arithmetic, I'm sure other intelligent species would also have that ability too. Language is just a reflection of the way we experience the world though our minds and senses.

Let´s, though, not forget that there are non-binary communication means, and that there has also been a long tradition in using language in a non-binary way - story- and myth-telling, metaphores, analogies, poems etc. This may even have preceeded the supposedly "exact" use of language.

I'm not sure I agree. Stories, myths, poems, etc require a quite sophisticated language to already be established in order to be expressed. I would imagine that categorising things was a more likely starting point, eg, expressions for things like food, water, danger, etc.

So, where we agree: The fact that humans almost universally rely on binary speaking (and consequently binary thinking) as epistemologically useful tells us something - i.e. it tells us that this choice is probably not nilly-willy arbirtrary, but that there is a preceeding cause for it.

Ok good

Where we seem to disagree: I don´t believe that this tells us something about the way the world works. It tells us something about how our minds work and, as you say, the way we experience the world. About our inner make-up, if you will.

I agree with this:

"It tells us something about how our minds work and the way we experience the world."​

I'm having trouble with this:

"I don´t believe that this tells us something about the way the world works."​

I don't think the way our minds work and we experience the world is completely divorced from reality. After all, our minds have evolved as a means to make decisions and judgements about the things we experience in the world. While our minds and senses obviously have their limitations, and can be dead wrong on occasion, it doesn't automatically follow that rules of the binary language system bear no relationship at all to reality. It tells us some aspect of the way the world works. What I'm basically trying to say is that the way our minds work bears some relationship to the way the world works otherwise we would probably be long extinct.

 

[quatona]

This topic is beyond my level, but could you explain why this is the case? I understand what metaphysical and methodological naturalism are, but not in enough depth to see how this conclusion follows.

The topic is probably beyond my level, too.
Yet, I find that pretty self-suggesting: The materialistic idea/hope is that once we find this particle, we´ll know what the world is "made of".
The problem: An indivisible - i.e. structureless - particle can not interact, it can not bond, it can not react, it can not form structures etc. etc. Thus, once we find such a material particle, we will have to conclude that the world can´t be "made of" it. The substance, the essence of the world must be something else.

Perhaps tautological. I don't see why it's oxymoronic? Basically all of our intuition about the world is gained from our experience of the world, is it not?

Probably just a semantic/communication problem. Where I come from, people usually use "intuition" to exactly distinguish a certain idea from ideas that are gained from experience, i.e. for a "knowledge (?)" that comes to them by way of something they do not find in their experiences.

With the terms 'experiential intuition' and 'subjective experience' I am just trying to qualify that our intuitive understanding of reality is limited by our minds and senses. In other words, our formal rules are statements about our perception of reality rather than statements about objective reality.

The way you use those terms they indeed appear to be tautological (rather than oxymoronic), and the qualifiers seem to be redundant.
Anyway, semantics aside, I completely agree with what you want to say here.

I might even argue one step further that binary thinking precedes language rather than being a consequence of it. For example, even some animals can separate, distinguish and create categories in their minds without the use of language. They can distinguish between food and not-food, predatory and harmless animals, etc. Dogs have even been shown to be able to do some basic counting and arithmetic, I'm sure other intelligent species would also have that ability too. Language is just a reflection of the way we experience the world though our minds and senses.

No disagreement here. I´m not sure that the "distinctions" other animals make are a cognitive process similar to the way we do it, but, yes, language is the reflection of one of the ways we we experience the world. (If you don´t mind me adding this qualifier ). It seems to me, that on the other hand, there has always - besides the analytical, separating tendency - an opposite tendency: integrative, holistic, synthetic (for lack of better terms) - that which ultimately has always resulted in metaphysical leanings as they also seem to have been around throughout the history of mankind. Just so this is not forgotten.

Sorry, gotta run. I´ll address the rest of your post later.
Let me use this opportunity to thank you for this exceptionally enjoyable conversation!

 

[quatona]

I'm not sure I agree. Stories, myths, poems, etc require a quite sophisticated language to already be established in order to be expressed. I would imagine that categorising things was a more likely starting point, eg, expressions for things like food, water, danger, etc.

I see what you are saying, but it´s a bit besides the point I was trying to make. Of course, once we express ourselves in binary language, this language has to exist (and then determines what can be expressed in it).
There is also no doubt that distinctive thinking is practical and useful, and so is binary language.
I am, however convinced that - unless we subscribe a priori to a very trivial and simplicistic positivism - this isn´t covering all of our thinking. Au contraire, I tend towards the notion (and this is my personal experience also), that the most insightful abstract or meta-thoughts aren´t lending themselves to being expressed in binary language.
Maybe an analogy helps explaining: Think of a dream where all sorts of "illogical" things happen (a person can be two persons, a place can look like a particular place but is actually somewhere else etc.etc. - you get the idea), yet while we dream it it makes complete sense, and it still does when we wake up and remember it. Not before we start trying to translate it into binary language (e.g. telling the dream to someone else) we notice that this language doesn´t allow for expressing the experience appropriately. It is downright adversary to it.

I agree with this:

"It tells us something about how our minds work and the way we experience the world."​

I'm having trouble with this:

"I don´t believe that this tells us something about the way the world works."​

I don't think the way our minds work and we experience the world is completely divorced from reality. After all, our minds have evolved as a means to make decisions and judgements about the things we experience in the world. While our minds and senses obviously have their limitations, and can be dead wrong on occasion, it doesn't automatically follow that rules of the binary language system bear no relationship at all to reality. It tells us some aspect of the way the world works. What I'm basically trying to say is that the way our minds work bears some relationship to the way the world works otherwise we would probably be long extinct.

Of course, the way we experience the world isn´t completely divorced from reality. When I described our desire to understand as seeking a relationship and said I find it absurd to seek a relationship that I am not part of, this implies that it would be equally absurd to seek a relationship with something without this something being part of it. The question is rather: What sort of relationship does the way we draw a map of reality create or allow for? Since our mind seems to work in a lot of different ways (and analytical thinking is just one of them), I am not content with simply and a priori accepting analytical thinking as exclusively warranting insights about reality, and even less so meta-insights. (Interestingly, the axiom "There is something" isn´t analytical, it isn´t separating, it isn´t divise - and it doesn´t necessarily suggest toepistemologically proceed in an analytical matter. ).

Regarding usefulness: We can be dead wrong even on the face value level without it creating practical problems. E.g. geocentrism didn´t keep humanity from surviving and prospering, and still today it wouldn´t create any major practical problems in my everyday life. I can think of the sun as "rising" quite fine. This expression has even survived the overcoming of geocentrism.

The concept of "solidity" has always played a huge part in analytical thinking (actually, every object-distinction is based on it). It was very usable, and even now that even only looking through a microscope gives us a hint how questionable that concept is, it remains usable and still will be used.

It is actually pretty easy to switch from an analytical approach to an integrative approach (or vice versa) even in small down-to-earth matters of everyday life, and the result will be a different reality.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I am so sick and tired of addressing these same arguments over and over again in these debates, so I am just going to list them out in no particular order so I can just link this thread whenever they come up again.

1. Anything that compares living organisms with objects humans create: This argument type is invalid due to the differences between how living things function and how machines function, as well as the materials from which they are derived. These differences make it unacceptable to assume that the origin of one must match the origin of the other, as the chemistry behind them is not identical. Any hypothetical scenario that asserts that in the context of the scenario, there are no differences, doesn't reflect reality. In reality, these things are different from each other, and your hypothetical scenario does not change that.

2. Unintentionally off topic issues: The theory of evolution covers the mechanism by which populations of organisms change over time and generations. No more and no less. The Big Bang and the origin of the universe are not relevant topics to these debates. The origin of life itself and abiogenesis are not relevant topics to these debates, as evolution only starts after life exists and has nothing to due with the origin of it. Morality has nothing to do with evolution, and any influence you might think it has on morality is not something the theory aims to have. It is a flaw in people, not science.

3. The "look around you" argument: Good for you that you think that the beauty of the sunset is evidence for the existence of a deity. Don't expect your subjective opinion to be particularly convincing to anyone else. There are plenty of things that can appear to be one thing, and yet are another thing, so just your personal perspective on the world with no objective evidence behind it is not reliable.

4. All special pleading: Statements such as "god exists beyond the universe, not within it" are weak attempts to avoid the burden of proof. You might cherish your beliefs, but they are not excluded from having to meet basic standards of evidence. If you have to resort to special pleading, you are essentially admitting that you have no evidence to actually bring to the debate, and you want people to think your position is valid anyways. Too bad for you, this subforum isn't an echo chamber, so you aren't going to get away with that.

5. Stereotypes pertaining to atheists: Saying that "atheists must hate god" or "atheists just want to sin" and other such statements just tells me that you haven't interacted with many atheists. That's legitimately the only way a person could think the majority of atheist stereotypes are accurate. The only thing all atheists share in common is a LACK of belief in deities and nothing else. As a result, atheists on the whole have less similarity between each other than pretty much any other way you could group people; I wouldn't be shocked if atheists are about as "similar" to each other as all the people that feel neutral about the color red.

6. God of the gaps: Gaps in our current knowledge about the universe, etc., don't automatically get to be filled up by deities by virtue of being currently unknown. Plenty of things we didn't know previously and were often filled by "the god of the gaps" turned out to have no observable relationship with any deities whatsoever. Unless there is actual evidence for a deity's involvement in a process, there is no legitimate reason to assert a deity must be involved.

7. Quote mines: If you see one or two sentences in which "an evolutionist admits that evolution is impossible" or some other such thing, do yourself a favor and at least try to find the original source for the quote. I swear, quoting people out of context is bad enough, but it seems like half of all quote mines aren't even sentences the people attributed to them said or wrote.

8. I'll name some evil "atheists": -_- are you really going to go there? Not all theists are saints, you know. No one becomes an evil dictator because they are an atheist, because atheism doesn't have any tenants or guidelines upon which to shape a person's morality or actions. There's no rallying point for atheism. Also, if applicable to the person I am directing this to, stop bringing up Hitler. The guy claimed to be Catholic, and since he is dead, we only have that to go on, so it is not your place to assert that this particular person you view as vile couldn't possibly share anything in common with you. I don't know why people bring up Hitler so much when Stalin (who was arguably equally evil) was openly an atheist. In any case, unless you want your religion held accountable for every single bad person that happened to share it with you, shut up about any evil atheists.

9. My argument is logic, and logic is better than science: This is the hierarchy of learning about the world, from best to worst, as a short list:
1. Math- math can prove a conclusion is correct indisputably. 4+4=8, and the answer will always be 8.
2. Science- science can utilize evidence to discern the most likely conclusion to represent reality, approaching the 100% certainty of proof but never quite reaching it. In other words, scientific conclusions can have a level of certainty well above 99%, but never 100%.
3. Logic- logic uses basic rules of argumentation to defend a position or attack one. However, none of the conclusions made through logic alone are really conclusive. It is reserved for questions which are too subjective for science to handle, such as "is it moral to kill my neighbor if they try to steal my family pet?" However, the answer obtained through logic will never be considered objectively correct, or even necessarily to be the most likely to be correct. Correct doesn't really apply to subjective situations.
In summary, any position without evidence to support it will always be crushed by positions that do have evidence, and anyone trying to argue for their position purely by logic when they could be using evidence is doing a disservice to themselves.

10. Microevolution happens, but macroevolution doesn't: For one thing, these are generally not recognized as official terms in the scientific community, because their exact meaning is uncertain (they are a translation of made up terms by some guy a long time ago, and he didn't make their meaning especially clear). Most people view microevolution as "small change" and macroevolution as "big change". However, since the mechanism of change is the same for both, it wouldn't make sense for one to occur and not the other. To make things especially murky, small changes in DNA can result in drastic changes in one's body, and large amounts of change in DNA can result in very minor or practically no difference; it all just depends on the type of mutation and what genes it affects. Since there is no mechanism which prevents changes from building up over time, as well as the other things I have mentioned, arguing that microevolution happens and macroevolution doesn't is invalid.

I'll probably add more as I think of more and have the time.

We will start with 2 and three. If origin has nothing to do with it, then whether it was created has nothing to do with it. Yet every evolutionists insists it can’t have been created, and brings in the origin themselves.

Yes, look around you, it’s called empericial evidence, something I know evolutionists like to ignore for theory only.

Asians remain Asians, Africans remain Africans. Only when those two mate does a new variation suddenly enter the record. Just as all fossils remain the same, and new variations suddenly enter the record. You just can’t observe mating froma pile of bones.

I know you would prefer we ignore the observational evidence of how variation actually enters the species, but it ain’t gonna happen in this lifetime. Husky never evolves into the Chinook, nor does the Mastiff. Asians never evolve into the Afro-Asian, nor does the African.

But let’s be honest, when two mate is the only time you have observed changes at the subspecies level. Oh, my bad, that’s right, you want to ignore observations and only consider theory.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The topic is probably beyond my level, too.
Yet, I find that pretty self-suggesting: The materialistic idea/hope is that once we find this particle, we´ll know what the world is "made of".
The problem: An indivisible - i.e. structureless - particle can not interact, it can not bond, it can not react, it can not form structures etc. etc. Thus, once we find such a material particle, we will have to conclude that the world can´t be "made of" it. The substance, the essence of the world must be something else.

It is something else, energy. It has no physical form in and of itself. It is contained in everything, and everything is made up of it, and will return to it when it ceases to exist.

Romans 1:20 was clear in that only our understanding of the things made would remove the excuses. We already understand everything is made from and contains this invisible energy. That it is this itself which enables us to breathe, think, and move. Out thoughts don’t originate in our brain, they originate in the spark that happens between those neurons.

We are the image of God, for God is Mind/Energy/Thought.....

 

[PsychoSarah]

We will start with 2 and three. If origin has nothing to do with it, then whether it was created has nothing to do with it.

To an extent. There are over 3 billion years of evolutionary history preserved in fossils, so evidence contradicts the idea of, say, humans being created as humans. However, there really isn't any evidence against the idea that the first life was brought here rather than formed here, and it wouldn't matter as far as the theory of evolution is concerned if that did happen.

Yet every evolutionists insists it can’t have been created, and brings in the origin themselves.

I have only seen an evolution supporter bring up matters of abiogenesis before a creationist did in an evolution debate twice. Not our fault creationists want to argue about it so much.

Yes, look around you, it’s called empericial evidence, something I know evolutionists like to ignore for theory only.

When I refer to the "look around you", argument, I mean inane stuff like claims that "the beauty of the sunset is evidence for god" or "I prayed for my grandma to survive a surgery and she lived, and that's evidence for god".

Asians remain Asians, Africans remain Africans. Only when those two mate does a new variation suddenly enter the record. Just as all fossils remain the same, and new variations suddenly enter the record. You just can’t observe mating froma pile of bones.

Disproven by the fact that two populations of E. coli, each originating from a single cell, will not retain the exact same level of genetic variety if allowed to grow with these distinctions:
1. Population one is allowed to form multiple colonies and persist via individuals from multiple colonies each generation.
2. Population 2 is reduced down to 1 colony each generation.

By your logic, mutation never contributes to beneficial variety in cells, so the two populations that started out genetically identical will never diverge in such a way that results in an increase in variety that benefits them. Yet, we observe increases in beneficial variety.

As a matter of fact, by your logic, these bacteria populations should inevitably die out due to the accumulation of detrimental mutations never offset by any benign ones.

I know you would prefer we ignore the observational evidence of how variation actually enters the species, but it ain’t gonna happen in this lifetime. Husky never evolves into the Chinook, nor does the Mastiff. Asians never evolve into the Afro-Asian, nor does the African.

Pfft, you are the one that decided to ignore the fact that we know certain breeds of dog originated from other dog breeds without crossbreeding. We know it because we ourselves did it.

But let’s be honest, when two mate is the only time you have observed changes at the subspecies level. Oh, my bad, that’s right, you want to ignore observations and only consider theory.

No, your statement is simply wrong and would be demonstrable as such within less than a year of growing bacteria on plates.

 

[Everybodyknows]

We will start with 2 and three. If origin has nothing to do with it, then whether it was created has nothing to do with it. Yet every evolutionists insists it can’t have been created, and brings in the origin themselves.

Yes, look around you, it’s called empericial evidence, something I know evolutionists like to ignore for theory only.

Asians remain Asians, Africans remain Africans. Only when those two mate does a new variation suddenly enter the record. Just as all fossils remain the same, and new variations suddenly enter the record. You just can’t observe mating froma pile of bones.

I know you would prefer we ignore the observational evidence of how variation actually enters the species, but it ain’t gonna happen in this lifetime. Husky never evolves into the Chinook, nor does the Mastiff. Asians never evolve into the Afro-Asian, nor does the African.

But let’s be honest, when two mate is the only time you have observed changes at the subspecies level. Oh, my bad, that’s right, you want to ignore observations and only consider theory.

Were Africans and Asians created separately? How do you explain all the different races coming from Adam and Eve?

 

[quatona]

It is something else, energy.

That´s possible.

 

[quatona]

Hey again YouAreAwesome, and sorry for letting you hanging.
Having strong leanings to Radical Constructivism, I have always been pleading for replacing "Is this proposition true?" by "Is this proposition helpful/useful?" altogether (because the latter question appears more useful than the former ).
So I can agree with the overall idea of your post - I am not sure, though, that I agree with the details and the way you go about deducing your conclusion.
Thus, allow me to make some comments and ask some questions.

So axioms, as subsets of unfalsifiable claims, are "tested" by how well they achieve their aims.

1. You are aware that - in regards to traditional Western philosophy and metaphysics - this is highly iconoclastic and heretic, aren´t you?
Philosophy has always taken pride in being "pure", in having no other aim than pursuing the "truth", in not being pragmatic.
Not that that´s a problem for me - but it´s an interesting and fundamental change in paradigms.
2. I still don´t think that everything you call "axiom" is within the subset of "unfalsifiable claims". E.g. the rules of logic and mathematics aren´t, in my understanding - as I have explained before. Not sure if this caveat is important to make here, but I felt it might be good to remind you of this in order to avoid basic misunderstandings.
3. Trying to follow your approach "How well does this unfalsifiable claim serve its purpose?" I am wondering: Who gets to define the purpose? IOW if someone confronts me with an unfalsifiable claim, would my first question have to be: What purpose do you want this unfalsifiable claim to serve?

The fact that they are helpful is important because some unfalsifiable claims can help us understand what we are studying. In math we ask, does the axiom help describe the system?

Wait - it would be important to me what you mean by "system" here. Do you mean math - and is the purpose of a mathematical axiom entirely self-referential (describing the formal system that it is part of)?
(You have to bear with me, since I am an idiot in mathematics. Maybe a very simple (! ) example would help?

Then bringing this back to all unfalsifiable claims, perhaps we can use the same evaluation method for some greater subset of claims: Evaluate the credibility of the claim by evaluating the inevitable consequences of the claim.

Well, again, I am hesitant to simply follow you here. I still have the suspicion that you are deducing from axioms that aren´t even unfalsifiable claims, and even less unfalsifiable claims about the "reality out there" (for lack of a better term).
Since it seems to me that you describe the benefit of mathematical axioms as self-referentially "serving the formal system mathematics" (and please feel free to correct me if I got that wrong!), at this point I could at best transfer this to metaphysics in the same way (assuming that metaphysics were a formal system, in the first place): The purpose of an unfalsifiable metaphysical claim is to - self-referentially - describe the metaphysical approach that brought it about.
Personally, this isn´t what I expect a metaphysical approach to do for me - to merely explain itself.

Are the consequences helpful? Do they help describe the system?

Again, I still have problems transferring the approach of a formal system that apparently is happy with defining, describing and sustaining itself to an approach that is meant to describe the reality out there - i.e. point beyond itself.

I'm thinking there is some greater subset of unfalsifiable claims that should not be just written off with a shrug of the shoulders.

I am not necessarily disagreeing - but can I ask you to give me an example for clarification?

 

[Everybodyknows]

Let me use this opportunity to thank you for this exceptionally enjoyable conversation!

Likewise, thank you. I'm enjoying your insights.

language is the reflection of one of the ways we we experience the world. (If you don´t mind me adding this qualifier ). It seems to me, that on the other hand, there has always - besides the analytical, separating tendency - an opposite tendency: integrative, holistic, synthetic (for lack of better terms) - that which ultimately has always resulted in metaphysical leanings as they also seem to have been around throughout the history of mankind. Just so this is not forgotten.

Yes. Agree.

Of course, once we express ourselves in binary language, this language has to exist (and then determines what can be expressed in it).
There is also no doubt that distinctive thinking is practical and useful, and so is binary language.
I am, however convinced that - unless we subscribe a priori to a very trivial and simplicistic positivism - this isn´t covering all of our thinking. Au contraire, I tend towards the notion (and this is my personal experience also), that the most insightful abstract or meta-thoughts aren´t lending themselves to being expressed in binary language.

Agree again.

Of course, the way we experience the world isn´t completely divorced from reality. When I described our desire to understand as seeking a relationship and said I find it absurd to seek a relationship that I am not part of, this implies that it would be equally absurd to seek a relationship with something without this something being part of it. The question is rather: What sort of relationship does the way we draw a map of reality create or allow for? Since our mind seems to work in a lot of different ways (and analytical thinking is just one of them), I am not content with simply and a priori accepting analytical thinking as exclusively warranting insights about reality, and even less so meta-insights. (Interestingly, the axiom "There is something" isn´t analytical, it isn´t separating, it isn´t divise - and it doesn´t necessarily suggest toepistemologicall

I'm in no way praising analytical thinking as the highest form of understanding, but am just using it as an example since we are on the topic. I'm still not clear, when you say that the rules or axioms of a formal system aren't statements about the way the world works what exactly do you mean? What then do you think their relationship with reality is, (if they have one are all). Again I'm by no means an expert on this topic so perhaps my confusion stems from my lack of understanding.

Regarding usefulness: We can be dead wrong even on the face value level without it creating practical problems. E.g. geocentrism didn´t keep humanity from surviving and prospering, and still today it wouldn´t create any major practical problems in my everyday life. I can think of the sun as "rising" quite fine. This expression has even survived the overcoming of geocentrism.

What?!!! Geocentrism is wrong? Damn you Copernicus!

The concept of "solidity" has always played a huge part in analytical thinking (actually, every object-distinction is based on it). It was very usable, and even now that even only looking through a microscope gives us a hint how questionable that concept is, it remains usable and still will be used.

Furthermore, solidity goes out the window on the quantum level.

It is actually pretty easy to switch from an analytical approach to an integrative approach (or vice versa) even in small down-to-earth matters of everyday life, and the result will be a different reality.

Could you give an example?

 

[quatona]

I'm in no way praising analytical thinking as the highest form of understanding, but am just using it as an example since we are on the topic.

Don´t worry - I am aware you don´t.
So it is one example of how the human mind can work, and there are other ways, and I guess the whole point is: Relying solely on this kind of thinking will determine the possible results.

One of the things that makes analytical thinking so attractive is: It allows for a clearly defined method, its rules are transparent and consistent, and its results tend to make reality look a little less blurry.
All other (more analogous) ways of perception and interpretation do not seem to come with these advantages, and once we submit them to the criteria of analytical thinking, they will have lost before the dialogue has even started.
So what we are looking for is a way to appreciate these kinds of perception/interpretation for what they can do for us (in the same way we appreciate analytical thinking and the scientific method for what they can do for us).
What we are also looking for (since we are at this point looking at things from an integrative pov ) is a way of integrating various kinds of thinking without letting them compete or try to stamp their authority upon each other.
The concept of e.g. "falsifiability" itself is a product of the analytical approach (which likes to operate with the binary "true vs. false"). Thus, since we don´t want analytical thinking to set the paradigms for our epistemological approach, we better not accept this concept as the superiour determinator.

But, in the end of the day, maybe it´s all about personal preferences. Personally, I have no problem with reality being "blurry", without clear lines, being as complex as it is. When it comes to things that are important to me, I have no interest in drawing such lines. Plus, intuitively, I sense that analogous thinking is getting me closer to the essence of reality (maybe that´s why it´s called "analogous" ). IOW - I like this relationship better, it feels closer.
Think of a soundwave and its digital representation that will always - no matter how good the resolution - consist of squares. This representation may be good enough for certain practical purposes, but to me it misrepresents the essence and nature of a soundwave.

I'm still not clear, when you say that the rules or axioms of a formal system aren't statements about the way the world works what exactly do you mean?

I mean that all they do is define the way we want to think about the world. The results are necessarily restricted to what is possible within this kind of thinking. To put it very simple: If your formal system consists only of the categories black and white, reality will be black and white.

What then do you think their relationship with reality is, (if they have one are all).

I guess I wouldn´t say that they have a relationship with reality. Rather, I´d say that they form and determine the relationship we have with reality. If that makes any sense.
Thus, as I have already hinted in my post to YouAreAwesome, I´d much prefer to do away with the criteria "accurate/true" and replace them by "more or less useful/helpful" (for a given task) or even "more or less beautiful", n the given context.

Again I'm by no means an expert on this topic so perhaps my confusion stems from my lack of understanding.

Neither am I. I am just offering my personal view (as far as verbal language even allows for expressing it congenially, that is).

Furthermore, solidity goes out the window on the quantum level.

That´s what t looks like to me, too. (But again - who am I to talk about quantum mechanics and stuff?).
Assuming for a moment that solidity has gone out of the window: Wouldn´t this show that analytical, distinctional thinking is superimposing paradigms on reality that simply are made out of "thin air"? Wouldn´t that suggest that the usefulness of analytical thinking is a consequence of how we want/need reality to be, rather than being an "accurate" representation of reality?