Why Would An Agnostic Doubt the Theory of Evolution

[Loudmouth]

Except it is not the ID proponents that claim it looks designed.

Yes, just as the pig cloud looks designed.

 

[Zosimus]

I am not wrong. You apply parsimony to every decision you make and your brain applies parsimony to every interpretation it makes about your sensory input. When you cross with the green light in the middle of the night you are making the parsimoniously-justified assumption that there is not a silent, invisible truck hurtling towards the intersection. When you hear footsteps in your house you likely assume it is your girlfriend rather than an intruder. When you see your girlfriend you assume that it is her and not a gun-toting murderer who looks exactly like her. When you choose to take pills for your headaches, you are assuming that you are experiencing a minor ailment rather than the beginning of a brain aneurysm for which you should seek immediate medical care. That doesn't fit your decision theory rational; the potential cost of having an aneurysm far outweighs the cost of going to the doctor with what turns out to be a headache (I don't know what Peruvian healthcare is like, so let's imagine that you live in Canada where such a trip would be free). Same for a what seems to be a cold or flu. You could have these minor ailments, or you could have something much more dangerous (many very serious conditions have symptoms similar to cold or flu). According to decision theory as you've outlined it, you should be going to the doctor in case you are suffering from something very serious and the cost of going to the doctor is negligible. But you don't. Why? Because you are aware that a headache is unlikely to signal an aneurysm and that flu-like symptoms are more likely to be the flu than something very serious.

And to address your postscript, I am not arguing that parsimony is a valid way to approach things because people do it literally all the time, I'm saying that it is a valid way to approach things because people do it all the time and it works quite well.

Wrong. Every time I cross the intersection when the light turns green it's because I'm convinced that an invisible tailgating truck will mow me down unless I move forward immediately.

There's a history of aneurysm in my family. I take vitamin C, 500 mg three times a day. You see, my ancestors used to make vitamin C in their livers, but somehow I picked up a bad gene and I don't make hardly any so I have to supplement it.

Now someone will accuse me of believing in scientific studies. Actually, though, the cost of taking vitamin C is small whereas the potential gain is large.

P.S. The last time I went to the Peruvian health care facility I sat for 6 hours waiting for my son to be attended to. Simply because there is zero cost in terms of Nuevos Soles Peruanos does not mean that there is no cost. There is an Opportunity Cost.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You reject the scientific method as well?

Not at all, I just don't hold it in reverence.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Panspermia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've heard of this theory, though admittedly I'm not very familiar with it.

At first glance though, I don't quite see how panspermia theory would go against either Darwinian evolution or abiogenesis: not only does it not explain how life began, but even assuming the theory is true, there's no reason Darwinian evolution couldn't have taken place after life first came to Earth.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, just as the pig cloud looks designed.

I am sorry but your ignorance of the fine tuning argument is showing in your responses.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not at all, I just don't hold it in reverence.

Oh, please. Enough with the fake religiosity.

Zosimus has to reject the entire scientific method in order to get rid of the theory he doesn't like. You are cheering him on. Why shouldn't we assume that you are in the same anti-intellecutal school as Zosimus is?

 

[Zosimus]

I guess you missed that whole evidenced-based science stuff that the theory of evolution has behind it?

Or are you once again claiming that the scientific method is faith?

No, I'm just unconvinced by logical fallacies.

You see, you have a theory (let's call that T) and you have observations (let's call those O) such that:

T => O
Then you find the observations (O).
Then you conclude that T is true.

In reality you have only committed a logical fallacy.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, just as the pig cloud looks designed.

Do you think Francis Crick equates DNA to fluffy clouds?

 

[Loudmouth]

I am sorry but your ignorance of the fine tuning argument is showing in your responses.

You are ignorant of the finely tuned atmospheric conditions it required to produce that pig. Can you explain the appearance of design in the pig cloud, or not?

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you think Francis Crick equates DNA to fluffy clouds?

I am. If you want to have a conversation with Francis Crick, get a time machine.

 

[Sofaman]

Sure lots of things about humans seem sub-optimal. Dios mío humans come with two lungs, when you only need one. They come with six eye muscles, when you only need four.

Of course by this argument you can demonstrate that no V8 engine is designed. After all, cars run just fine on 4 cylinders. In fact, 3 cylinder cars work well, too. I refuse to believe, therefore, that the Dodge Challenger was designed. It must have occurred naturally through millions of years of natural selection.

I was thinking more along the lines of us breathing and eating through the same hole making it possible to choke.

Or the laryngeal nerve taking a 14 foot detour in giraffe.

Or Ectopic pregnancies

Or the appendix

Or the development of the male testes

The narrow birth canal meaning babies skulls must be in three parts prior to birth leaving weak spots for 12 months

Just off the top of my head

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I'm just unconvinced by logical fallacies.

You are unconvinced by a scientific theory with 150 years of solid science behind it. You remain unconvinced because you don't want it to be true. We call this denial.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oh, please. Enough with the fake religiosity.

Zosimus has to reject the entire scientific method in order to get rid of the theory he doesn't like. You are cheering him on. Why shouldn't we assume that you are in the same anti-intellecutal school as Zosimus is?

I am showing my appreciation for his arguments. I don't necessarily agree with him on all points but I have enjoyed his discourse.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am showing my appreciation for his arguments. I don't necessarily agree with him on all points but I have enjoyed his discourse.

You appreciate an argument that rejects the scientific method? Why?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You appreciate an argument that rejects the scientific method? Why?

He makes some valid points and it intrigues me. I feel he is consistent in his views even if I disagree with him.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

You are unconvinced by a scientific theory with 150 years of solid science behind it. You remain unconvinced because you don't want it to be true.

Perhaps but, why? I'm not defending his arguments, I'm just saying that if Zosimus genuinely is an agnostic, we can't really accuse him of denying evolution because it threatens his faith. So what other reason is there to doubt evolution?

 

[Loudmouth]

I was thinking more along the lines of us breathing and eating through the same hole making it possible to choke.

Or the laryngeal nerve taking a 14 foot detour in giraffe.

Or Ectopic pregnancies

Or the appendix

Or the development of the male testes

The narrow birth canal meaning babies skulls must be in three parts prior to birth leaving weak spots for 12 months

Just off the top of my head

If cars were like life, then only one lineage of cars would have seatbelts while only a single lineage of cars would have airbags. Since these inventions occurred in separate lineages, no car would have both seat belts and airbags. Inventions made for cars would not be allowed to be used in boats or airplanes because adaptations are not allowed to cross between lineages. Therefore, since internal combustion engines first appeared in cars, they are not allowed for use in boats or airplanes. That is, if designs really did look like life.

 

[Zosimus]

You don't accept the findings of science because you have declared the scientific method to be a logical fallacy. That goes way beyond any normal level of skepticism.

It's not just me. A Google search for: scientific method logical fallacy yields 1.43 million hits.

The Scientific Method is a Logical Fallacy vid - YouTube

Circular reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau note that "using the scientific method to judge the scientific method is circular reasoning". Scientists attempt to discover the laws of nature and to predict what will happen in the future, based on those laws. However, per David Hume's problem of induction, science cannot be proven inductively by empirical evidence, and thus science cannot be proven scientifically. An appeal to a principle of the uniformity of nature would be required to deductively necessitate the continued accuracy of predictions based on laws that have only succeeded in generalizing past observations. But as Bertrand Russell observed, "The method of 'postulating' what we want has many advantages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil".

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm just saying that if Zosimus genuinely is an agnostic, . . .

That's a big if.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's not just me. A Google search for: scientific method logical fallacy yields 1.43 million hits.

That you have found fellow crackpots does not make you less of a crackpot.

Just so we are clear, you also reject every other single theory in science, correct? You reject the theory of germs, theory of atoms, theory of gravity, etc., correct?