Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[VinceBlaze]

This last summer, I saw that for the very first time. Before that one unique encounter I wouldn't have believed you. But that was just one case of any evolutionist ever doing that, and I've been in these crevo forums way too long. What I normally see, and what I have always consistently seen have been creationists claiming infallible knowledge of the unknown. To date, I've only seen a handful of exceptions to that rule, and they were all converts to the evolutionary mindset.

What I often see are hardened debaters on both sides who become more rigid in their perspectives the more they engage in conflict with each other.

 

[TeddyKGB]

What I often see are hardened debaters on both sides who become more rigid in their perspectives the more they engage in conflict with each other.

Are there really only two sides here? Is your "extreme agnosticism" (or whatever you called it) somehow immune to these polarizing effects?

 

[VinceBlaze]

As far as I can tell, all you did in 272 was talk about how thorough an agnostic you are without saying much in the way of how or why your uber-agnosticism is warranted.

Correct. I made an initial assertion without substantiation. The reason that I have not bothered to present substantiation is because we are not first agreed on what constitutes valid evidence in the context of argument.

You've done little but claim that science simply wilts under your skeptical gaze.

Not science itself technically, but rather the scientist herself/himself. Of course my stance may be interpreted as offensive to many scientists who trust in their scientific skills. Although it is not my intent to offend, I may tend to be excessively blunt. That's the corporate manager in me.

Where does the breakdown occur?

The breakdown generally begins within the human psyche coupled with the human sensory organs. It is technically not a breakdown of science itself, but rather a breakdown of the scientist (or non-scientist for that matter).

For example, I constantly seem to encounter scientists (not all of course) who appear to suffer from psychological aberration, which then makes me call into question their powers of observation. This category is in no way restricted to scientists however.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Nothing sends most scientists off the deep end quicker than debating a strongly held opinion that is not based on cold, hard numbers. Many of the scientific believers that I know hold their beliefs strongly, but they won't debate them because they know their beliefs are based on opinion and personal experience and are, thus, undebatable from a scientific perspective.

Fully agreed.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Correct. I made an initial assertion without substantiation. The reason that I have not bothered to present substantiation is because we are not first agreed on what constitutes valid evidence in the context of argument.

For what are we supposed to be considering evidence?

The breakdown generally begins within the human psyche coupled with the human sensory organs. It is technically not a breakdown of science itself, but rather a breakdown of the scientist (or non-scientist for that matter).

For example, I constantly seem to encounter scientists (not all of course) who appear to suffer from psychological aberration, which then makes me call into question their powers of observation. This category is in no way restricted to scientists however.

So you've managed to single-handedly distill some normative version of human psychology only then to conclude that scientists tend to have some systematic disconnect, again as judged by you?

I shudder to think what that could mean. I have no regard whatsoever for horoscopes thanks to scientific thinking, yet I know they appear every day in the morning paper. That suggests to me more than a passing and/or minority interest in horoscopes from a potentially "normative" percentage of the population.

I fear you won't be able to deduce much about the average human psyche, beyond a few trivialities, by placing an arbitrary division between scientists and everyone else.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Are there really only two sides here? Is your "extreme agnosticism" (or whatever you called it) somehow immune to these polarizing effects?

Agnostics tend moreso to get hit in the middle from both sides. Much like a moderate will get hit from both sides in a war between conservatives and liberals. Thus both polarizations and counter-polarizations may ensue.

 

[Chalnoth]

For example, I constantly seem to encounter scientists (not all of course) who appear to suffer from psychological aberration, which then makes me call into question their powers of observation.

And guess what? Scientists don't trust their own powers of observation. Thus we try to keep these sorts of things from influencing the outcome of our experiments.

Typically this is done by simulating data. We take a known input, and see if we can properly infer the output. Sometimes this is done in a statistical measure. Using a Monte Carlo simulation, we might simulate tens of thousands of possible experimental inputs, and compare them against the experimental output to ensure that our results come out as expected. Sometimes this is done through blind tests: one group of people will simulate the input, and a separate group will see if they can infer the proper output, without communicating at all with the simulation group as to the nature of the input.

One specific example deals with supernova tests, specifically the SDSS Supernova Survey. As part of their method of detecting supernovae, they have people sit down and filter through large numbers of images (that have already been narrowed down by a computer) in order to look for supernovae. In order to ensure that these people are not missing supernovae they should be seeing, there is a separate, independent group of people that add fake supernovae to the images before they are processed. This way the group can obtain statistics related to how good each person is at finding supernovae.

So no, we don't trust our observational abilities, and we are very aware of a tendancy for personal bias to affect our results. So we try as hard as we can to prevent such issues from affecting the results.

 

[VinceBlaze]

For what are we supposed to be considering evidence?

Please clarify your context.

So you've managed to single-handedly distill some normative version of human psychology only then to conclude that scientists tend to have some systematic disconnect, again as judged by you?

Normative? How so?

I fear you won't be able to deduce much about the average human psyche, beyond a few trivialities, by placing an arbitrary division between scientists and everyone else.

Then I will leave your fear with you.

 

[VinceBlaze]

And guess what? Scientists don't trust their own powers of observation. Thus we try to keep these sorts of things from influencing the outcome of our experiments.

Again, this may be logically and ideally so, but practically it doesn't always win out.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Agnostics tend moreso to get hit in the middle from both sides. Much like a moderate will get hit from both sides in a war between conservatives and liberals. Thus both polarizations and counter-polarizations may ensue.

The problem with left-middle-right metaphors is that they sometimes get in their own way.

You portray yourself as being in a more defensible and/or reasonable position merely by arbitrarily positioning yourself within the metaphor. Common descent is not, however, an extreme position - in a philosophical sense - simply because it is opposed by special creation. Common descent is supported, for all intents and purposes, by all of the available evidence and special creation, for all intents and purposes, by none.

Thus, if we choose to hold the totality of evidence as a benchmark, common descent is by far the most reasonable, defensible position even though it - in a philosophical sense - lies at one endpoint of the metaphor.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Please clarify your context.

It was your mention of "evidence" to which I was replying.

Normative? How so?

I think that's my line. You suggested an observable "psychological aberration" possessed by some scientists, which certainly implies a baseline against which you are comparing.

 

[Chalnoth]

Again, this may be logically and ideally so, but practically it doesn't always win out.

Which is exactly why there is a peer review system. The peer review system in science serves as a check to keep scientists honest. This works by having different scientists review the work of others, by having independent groups of scientists repeat the work of others, and by having independent groups of scientists perform other, similar experiments to measure the same things in a different way. This way we can have some degree of confidence that our own personal foibles aren't impacting the results.

 

[Aron-Ra]

What I often see are hardened debaters on both sides who become more rigid in their perspectives the more they engage in conflict with each other.

Fortunately, I've never seen that. I have never ever seen two equally-rigid contestants with equally credible counter claims. Every case I can think of involves one with an argument of substance against one with naught but resistance. This is especially true in the realm of this topic. On [thankfully] rare occasions, I have been on the wrong side of the issue on the table. But if the argument is logical and the supportive claims valid, I'll have to consider that, and inevitably re-consider my own position regardless what the more accurate claimant's conduct was.

Most evolutionists admit only a greater probability of accuracy as supported by all the available data - while the creationists claim "absolute truth" in lieu of any supportive reason at all. Ironically, the evolutionist's comments are usually each at least mostly correct while the creationist is often completely wrong on almost ever point.

 

[milkyway]

Again, this may be logically and ideally so, but practically it doesn't always win out.

Can you give some examples of where it "doesn't always win out."

You seem to have an aptitude for making rather woolly comments, or answering questions with other questions, but I've not read much of any substance in your posts.

 

[birdan]

Can you give some examples of where it "doesn't always win out."

You seem to have an aptitude for making rather woolly comments, or answering questions with other questions, but I've not read much of any substance in your posts.

Substance is the bane of anti-science posters.

 

[VinceBlaze]

The problem with left-middle-right metaphors is that they sometimes get in their own way.

In the context of conflict perhaps.

You portray yourself as being in a more defensible and/or reasonable position merely by arbitrarily positioning yourself within the metaphor. Common descent is not, however, an extreme position - in a philosophical sense - simply because it is opposed by special creation. Common descent is supported, for all intents and purposes, by all of the available evidence and special creation, for all intents and purposes, by none.

I hold to a stance of common descent as opposed to a stance of creationism.

Thus, if we choose to hold the totality of evidence as a benchmark, common descent is by far the most reasonable, defensible position even though it - in a philosophical sense - lies at one endpoint of the metaphor.

I fully agree. I just may differ regarding from what/whom we are descended.

 

[VinceBlaze]

It was your mention of "evidence" to which I was replying.

I'm not aware that I've ventured to provide any evidence for my assertions. The exercise seems rather moot if we are not able to agree what constitutes valid evidence in the first place.

I think that's my line. You suggested an observable "psychological aberration" possessed by some scientists, which certainly implies a baseline against which you are comparing.

Okay. Is this somehow a problem?

 

[VinceBlaze]

Which is exactly why there is a peer review system. The peer review system in science serves as a check to keep scientists honest. This works by having different scientists review the work of others, by having independent groups of scientists repeat the work of others, and by having independent groups of scientists perform other, similar experiments to measure the same things in a different way. This way we can have some degree of confidence that our own personal foibles aren't impacting the results.

An ideal endeavor. But how well does it actually work?

 

[VinceBlaze]

Most evolutionists admit only a greater probability of accuracy as supported by all the available data - while the creationists claim "absolute truth" in lieu of any supportive reason at all. Ironically, the evolutionist's comments are usually each at least mostly correct while the creationist is often completely wrong on almost ever point.

This perception may partially be based upon what side of the table one may be debating from.

 

[TeddyKGB]

I'm not aware that I've ventured to provide any evidence for my assertions. The exercise seems rather moot if we are not able to agree what constitutes valid evidence in the first place.

My inner voice is telling me to stay away from there for the time being.

Okay. Is this somehow a problem?

You either can identify a normative personality or you can't. Which is it?