The Creationist method..

[Neo]

 

[Blackhawk]

Ahh! induction vs. deduction. However scientists use both all the time.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Not really. In science, deduction allows for the hypothesis to be rejected if the evidence doesn't fit it. This is different from what is depected in the right pane, which doesn't allow for the conclusion to be rejected.

Brief reference if anyone cares.

 

[Blackhawk]

Okay but scientists have to use induction to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. If not then they would never. The reason this is so and what your link does not address is that if one uses deduction only then one can't narrow down things like the link did.

But by the way i think that some Christians are like the cartoon above. But then again I have also said many scientists are too. Their dogma is evolution. I just do not think that many people are really out for the real truth nowadays.

blackhawk

 

[Blackhawk]

"Though simple deductive logic plays a role in science, the conclusions and discoveries and theories and laws which comprise nearly the whole of scientific knowledge at any given time are all built on statistical inferences (whether overt or implied), employing inductive reasoning to arrive at the most plausible and most probable interpretations of the observations we make not only in the laboratory or in the field but in daily life."

Richard Carrier

It is a quote that I found on a major online skeptic online site.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Note: I was only pointing out that "The Creationist Method" was not actually deductive reasoning. which I thought you were implying in your first post.

I completely agree that induction is by far the better method for figuring out things. In practice, science is more like a cylical combination of the two with a feedback mechanism because most hypothesises have to be tweaked and changed on the way to becoming theories.

I would also like you to explain what you mean by the "dogma of evolution."

BTW: I'm a mod of the Evolution forum at that major online skeptic site.

 

[unworthyone]

I like this cartoon. It shows that the creationist already knows the necessary answers.

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by unworthyone
I like this cartoon. It shows that the creationist already knows the necessary answers.

Well, at least they think they do.

 

[elephanticity]

Originally posted by unworthyone
I like this cartoon. It shows that the creationist already knows the necessary answers.

No, it shows that they move backwards from doctrine to fact. It's not science, it's rationalization and propaganda.

If the bible is more important to you than evolution, fine. But ignoring facts that don't support your views is just egotistical and poor science. Especially considering the HUGE amount of facts they have to rationalize, discredit or just plain ignore.

 

[Blackhawk]

"I would also like you to explain what you mean by the "dogma of evolution." "

It is simple. Many scientists do not care about facts and truth. What they care about is promoting their own careers and will not go against the thought of the day. Some will and some do not because they think evolution is true.

So i am really not going against evolution itself but i believe scientists are human. and I think that the scientific community today has a lot to lose if evolution is not true. And it shows that when anyone goes against evolution they are personally attacked.

But again I have not decided about evolution vs. the 6 day version. i have to say that I lean heavily towards the evolution side right now.

Also I want to say that many of the creationists do what the cartoon says. But also I think many scientists do also but they are just not as honest about it. But there are good ones in both camps.

"No, it shows that they move backwards from doctrine to fact. It's not science, it's rationalization and propaganda."

i agree. Except that I think that it is too much of a generalization of one camp. I think there aer creationists that are scientific and see the evidence as supporting the 6 day account. And as I said above i see scientists doing the same type of thing also. So besides the generalization I agree. It definitely is not science.
blackhawk

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by elephanticity
No, it shows that they move backwards from doctrine to fact. It's not science, it's rationalization and propaganda.

If the bible is more important to you than evolution, fine. But ignoring facts that don't support your views is just egotistical and poor science. Especially considering the HUGE amount of facts they have to rationalize, discredit or just plain ignore.

You are right its not science. It's undeniable truth. Prove me wrong. Can't? Of course not.

 

[bartleby]

Originally posted by unworthyone


You are right its not science. It's undeniable truth. Prove me wrong. Can't? Of course not.

unworthyone,
i deny that it is truth. therefore it can't be undeniable truth. therefore you are proved wrong because if it was undeniable i wouldn't have been able to deny it...
bb

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by bartleby

unworthyone,
i deny that it is truth. therefore it can't be undeniable truth. therefore you are proved wrong because if it was undeniable i wouldn't have been able to deny it...
bb

It is only untrue if you can prove it untrue.

Prove to me your mind exists. Can't huh? Well that means it must not, right?

 

[jon1101]

I like this cartoon. It shows that the creationist already knows the necessary answers.

I dislike this cartoon. It shows a profound arrogance in the creationist, insisting that he is absolutely right with no room for misinterprettation or logical error. Remember, the geocentricists were just as certain that they were combatting herecy when they put Galileo under house arrest.

You are right its not science. It's undeniable truth. Prove me wrong. Can't? Of course not.

So it's not science? I wish more creationists would either take this stance or answer some scientific questions (see the 'final stumpers' thread). Thus, since creationism isn't science, it should not be taught in schools along side evolution.

Prove to me your mind exists. Can't huh? Well that means it must not, right?

*sigh* Define existence.

It is only untrue if you can prove it untrue.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Finally, someone who believes in the donkey orbitting Neptune. These skeptics were getting to me, but you finally have some faith!

-jon

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Cancer To Iniquity
*sigh* Define existence.

Exactly.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Finally, someone who believes in the donkey orbitting Neptune. These skeptics were getting to me, but you finally have some faith!
-jon

LOL. Hey if you think it does and it works for you then it works for you.
But to argue against it working for someone else is close-minded. When you yourself can't even show that person they are wrong.

 

[jon1101]

Exactly.

...and? I don't understand the point of this...

LOL. Hey if you think it does and it works for you then it works for you. But to argue against it working for someone else is close-minded. When you yourself can't even show that person they are wrong.

Eh? Okay, let me have fun with this:

Gravity is really a string of invisible men who form a human chain between all substance, holding the universe together. They are really strong little men.

The Donkey is God. He is the ultimate perceiver and we are all part of his God-dream.

The Donkey fell into this dream last Tuesday, effectively creating all that we now see.

Now, because you cannot disprove these statements they are all therefore true. Yeah, they 'work for me' or whatever.
__

Unworthyone, what happens when what works for me conflicts with what works for you but neither can be disproven?

In actuality, truth is truth; and there is only one truth. If something is asserted as truth is must be supported. Logic defaults to the negative - an unsupported statement is not accepted as true. Truth is in no way altered by 'what works for you,' nor does dismissal of ridiculous, unsupported, statements that 'work' entail closed-mindedness. Rather, closed mindedness is the state of certainty, the belief that one knows infallible truth.

"The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality." -George Bernard Shaw

-jon

 

[elephanticity]

I think that the scientific community today has a lot to lose if evolution is not true.

A few careers were wasted, tainted, and destroyed by the Piltdown Man hoax, but science went happily onward. More happily, in fact, as growing evidence couldn't account for PM's very existence.

For the individual, fame is found by proving others wrong. No one will fund me if i want to prove that the speed of light matches what is in the textbooks. But, if i have a theory that disproves it, that proves Einstein wrong, my name will be remembered for a long time.

Who's more famous? Anyone that presented the findings of geocentricity to the Italian Academy of Learning or Galileo, and his Heliocentric views?

It isn't called Newtonian Physics because he rubber stamped existing doctrine, but because he showed that Aristotelean Physics was wrong.

If there were a vast scientist conspiracy to hold up evolution, surely one or more would be sufficiently ambitious to produce the proof that makes his/her colleagues and competitors look like idiots, and enshrine his name forever.

How many college students sit quietly while the instructor puts out bogus information? Some, surely, but there will always be some one that wants to stand up and prove he knows more than the guy at the podium.

At the very least, physics majors taking basic mandatory biology classes should be pointing out that the famed 2nd law of thermodynamics prevents evolution, and failing, and taking their biology instructors to court, if there were any truth at all to the creationist assertion.

Scientists make mistakes. And there are always lines of the fund-poor rat finks waiting for a sign of weakness, so swoop and take over the financial backing.
It's not a perfect system, but it does make conspiracies dang hard to maintain.

 

[Blackhawk]

elephanticity,

good point about what makes a scientist famous. But I think that the overall post is far too simplistic. I am not saying that there is some vast conspiracy that scientist have against Christianity and creationists.

what I am saying is that not all scientists are really searching hard for real answers. They are happier being in the status quo. So when they receive information that goes against what they have been taught and based their life upon so they rationalize it away. So they are not out for real truth they are just out to prove their own beliefs. That is what I was trying to say. i am not against science or evolution. i am just saying that I do not trust scientists like they are infallible and that i do not trust science to weed out the bad people.

So i am a skeptic about many things. But after study I have grown to believe in some things such as God and the Bible. And also as far as scientific knowledge I see no reason to really not believe in evolution. But I am questioning my scientific beliefs right at this moment.

blackhawk

 

[edgeo]

Originally posted by Blackhawk
It is simple. Many scientists do not care about facts and truth.

Hmm, upon what do you base this observation? My own is that an overwhelming percentage of scientists are scrupulously caring about the truth. That is why they do not make good jurors. They are not swayed by disguised truth.

What they care about is promoting their own careers and will not go against the thought of the day.

I'm not sure what you mean by "thought of the day." Most scientific theories are carefully constructed and have survived the test of time. If you think that scientists should drop everything they are doing to give adequate resources to a new idea, I am sorry. Science is conservative. We will not chase down every new idea that comes along. If we followed up on every crackpot theory, we'd never make any progress. Science is not a democracy.

Some will and some do not because they think evolution is true.

For all practical purposes it is true to them. It works. Why not build on this knowledge and move on? Do you think we should be (or are) still testing evolution? No. It is an accepted premise in most cases, but if it stops working, then something else will take it's place.

So i am really not going against evolution itself...

Pardon me if I remain skeptical.

... but i believe scientists are human. and I think that the scientific community today has a lot to lose if evolution is not true. And it shows that when anyone goes against evolution they are personally attacked.

Sounds like an excuse to me. If someone came up with a credible argument, plenty of evidence to back it up, and a viable alternative, they would receive a fair hearing. The problem is that this has not been done. So, when someone is criticized, they take it personally. You see, Darwin understood this aspect of science. He developed a theory, outlined its shortcomings and supported it with tons of evidence. Creationists should take note.

But again I have not decided about evolution vs. the 6 day version. i have to say that I lean heavily towards the evolution side right now.

Once again, pardon me if I remain skeptical. If your opinion of scientists is any indication, you have a decidedly anti-science prejudice. If you had said "some" scientists only want to advance a personal agenda, I might think differently.

Also I want to say that many of the creationists do what the cartoon says. But also I think many scientists do also but they are just not as honest about it. But there are good ones in both camps.

Except that mainstream scientists are less honest, right?

 

[RufusAtticus]

Here is a relavent quote from my advisor's email signature.

I have openings for two postdocs in evolutionary theory. I am especially
interested in individuals who want to buck current trends and carve a new
role as theoretical natural historians! This entails developing novel
theoretical frameworks for mining the mother lode of evolutionary
information in new types of molecular data. Please see the web site below
for the technical details.
http://www.genetics.uga.edu/dept/positions.html

Check out the section I bolded.