I have seen some people quote Thomas Jefferson as saying, "Ridicule is he only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them." I don't know whether he actually said that. Either way, I disagree with the proposition. A proposition must be intelligible before one can ridicule it. An "unintelligible proposition" would be one that one could not determine any meaning behind. And there would be no point to ridicule.
In actual usage, ridicule is used by people who don't want an idea considered, but are incapable of arguing against the idea. In essence, they find the idea challenges their indoctrination and they want it suppressed. For my part, I find those who use ridicule in place of argument to be useless to discussions. They contribute nothing.
UPDATE: Here is a site that brings my position into high relief. Interestingly, though it is not their intent, the people who use ridicule against christian ideas may as well be writing "Great post, Ray" to all of Ray Comfort's evolution posts. They are doing the same thing, even if they are not on the same side.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I would have thought at least you would have told Don I am NOT a devil believing fundamentalist.
He seems to have taken my comment that he is possessed the wrong way.
Milo:
I am not able to speak to your beliefs. I don't know them well enough.
OK...you've never read any of my comments, you've never read my pathetic defunct blog, you never emailed me, I've never commented on your blog before.
Thanks. I feel totally invisible.
:) :) :)
I am attaching smiley faces to make it clear that this is faux outrage.
pvb, so glad I've found your blog. I've seen you comment at Daniel's Judgement blog for a long while now, and I admire your calm.
I'm also very pleased to find oranges here. I have searched all over various prophesy forums to find the origin of his history with Daniel.
I was disappointed that he no longer comments at Judgement but I guess Daniel is blocking him.
Stew,
its worse than being blocked. Daniel selectively lets through posts, so he controls arguments and gives the impression of winning arguments.
I just dont bother with him on his own ground. Better to expose his hypocrisy on other peoples blogs when he tries to appear holier than thou.
Easy way to tell if you have right beliefs is to take part in a discussion or a debate.
If you fear a debate, then you are shakey.
Only insecure people flee from debates.
One with truth never flees.
http://omrow.blogspot.com/
Stallions,
I was amused by your reprinting of C4 discussions. Is there a reason you record them on your own site?
I have to say you dont really understand science and the scientific method if this is what you think :
"We know that the tale of men emerging from monkeys is only a theory.
In other words, its nothing but a guess.
In schools and universities, it is still taught as a theory and NOT as a fact.
Dr Dawkins has been lying on TV. He said it is a fact.
Many scientists would disagree with him on this issue.
Scientists are divided on the theory of evolution.
This matter is not yet settled."
Scientists are not divided on the issue. There are always scientists who disagree about any topic. The key is scientific consensus. The "fact" of evolution IS the scientific consensus, in particular amongst those who are experts in the related areas of science, biology etc. The argument amongst scientists is how exactly evolution works, not if. By the way, a scientific "theory" is not an unsubstantiated hypothesis. You seem to be confusing the two.
And another amusing quote :
"Gravity is a FACT.
Moon of Jupiter are a FACT.
Earth's rotation is a FACT.
Evolution is a THEORY."
Lol.
Stallions:
"If you fear a debate, then you are shakey."
I must disagree. While I will state that those who refuse to hear dissenting voices are insecure in their beliefs, debating is a skill. And some people lack the skill. I've also heard it said that a good lawyer can get an unsuspecting person to "concede" anything no matter how ridiculous. So there can be reasons for caution, there.
Oranges:
I am quite aware that there is a consensus. I'm just not interested in a consensus among scientists. I am interested in the scientific method.
"The argument amongst scientists is how exactly evolution works, not if."
True, but it looks like "if" was never argued. The overarching concept of evolution has never been tested. (I.e. there are no experiments in which a possible outcome is identified as signifying that the diversity of life cannot have come from evolution and, instead, has some (unknown) cause. "Falsifiers" are only identified after they are safely ruled out.)
"By the way, a scientific 'theory' is not an unsubstantiated hypothesis. You seem to be confusing the two."
Perhaps. But I'm not. Please note that I have never said that something is "just a theory" in a scientific sense.
Pvblivs,
no, I'm not arguing that you have ever said that something is "just a theory" in a scientific sense. Just responding to Stallions comments on his site.
In terms of "Falsifiers" only ever being identified after they are safely ruled out, I'm not sure how evolution differs from any other field.
What falsifiers can you think of which would falsify evolution? The only way to come up with falsifiers would be to know a lot about the topic and the evidence as we currently know. In that respect .... falsifiers are always going to either:
a) falsify the theory, at which point the theory is abandoned or changed
b) dont falsify the theory
In ANY case where no falsifiers have been found, your claim stands. Otherwise ... the theory will not stand.
So you say "Falsifiers" are only ever identified after they are safely ruled out, but if they were indentified before they were ruled out the theory would be abandoned.
Do you see what I mean? Its self fulfilling. ANY theory for which there are no current falsifiers MUST have had its falsifiers already ruled out ;) Otherwise they would have falsified it.
To put it another way - evolution CAN be falsified. If fossils are found out of order, etc. Undoubtedly there ARE other possible falsifiers, but the people who will in the future be able to identify a new falsifier, have not yet found out enough scientific knowledge to know that the falsifier exists.
By even knowing the falsifier exists immediately relegates the falsifier itself to "already safely ruled out" as you would say, OR negates the theory.
The fact the theory still exists, means such falsifiers have not been identified.
I think I went round and round the houses there, but thats the point - its a circular argument, and self fulfilling.
Well, Oranges, let's take quantum mechanics as an example. It makes a very specific prediction on the measurement of polarization of photons. This prediction was contrary to normal expectations. An experiment was conducted in which the potential falsifier was identified in the preparations of the experiment (i.e. before they knew what was going to happen.)
More generally, if you actually have a theory that makes predictions, potential falsifiers can be deduced as anything that would defy those predictions. Then the potential falsifier can be identified in the setup to the experiment that tests the theory -- before it is known what the outcome will be. If you had something like that, I would have to concede error. Something like that is exactly what I am looking for to show that evolution has not always been kept safe.
One thing that drives the point home in my mind is chromosome 2. It is now (after the fact) asserted that failure to find some chromosome fusion among the human 23 chromosomes compared to the general 24 of the apes would be a potential falsifier. And they did do an experiment looking for such fusion. And they found it. BUT... they kept evolution safe. In the preparation of the experiment they said that if evolution was true they might find some fusion. They were prepared to do an exhaustive search. They knew what they were looking for. Simply put, they didn't identify lack of such a fusion as a potential falsifier because there was a chance that lack of such a fusion would be the actual outcome of the experiment. Now that the outcome is known and it is safe, it is identified as a "potential falsifier." But the actual experiment was "confirm or inconclusive." So... that is how evolution differs. They will look for things that support their idea. But until they know what will actually happen, identifiable alternate possibilities are not considered falsifiers. Afterwards, they go back and label the things they now know won't happen as "potential falsifiers."
Pvblivs,
Interesting.
Your falsifier argument seems to rely on the idea that a falsifier would have been valid if someone had sat down 200 years ago when the fossil record was in its infancy and said "if a fossil is discovered out of sequence, evolution is falsified". When there was little or no evidence either way. So your objection to using this argument today is that the evidence is now substantially greater? I'm not sure that identifying a falsifier when knowledge is limited is more valid than when knowledge is greater. Its still a falsifier ;)
To quote the "Evolution and Natural Selection" forum moderator Calilasseia at richarddawkins.net, regarding falsifiers for evolution:
"[1] Discovery of a fossil that seriously violated the time and taxonomic ordering of the fossil record (such as J. B. S. Haldane's "fossil rabbit in the Precambrian");
[2] Discovery of an organism containing genes that were completely incapable of being placed in the tree of life via molecular phylogeny.
"
No matter when the above falsifiers were identified, are they not valid today?
Surely identifying them before the tests are carried out is more a philosophical argument, than practical?
The idea that falsifiers have to be written down beforehand appears to originate from Sir Karl Popper, http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html:
"Clinical observations," like all other observations, are interpretations in the light of theories; and for this reason alone they are apt to seem to support those theories in the light of which they were interpreted. But real support can be obtained only from observations undertaken as tests (by "attempted refutations"); and for this purpose criteria of refutation have to be laid down beforehand; it must be agreed which observable situations, if actually observed, mean that the theory is refuted.He himself agreed that common descent was falsifiable, but thought natural selection was tough to falsify. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Evolution :
Popper himself drew a distinction between common descent and the process of natural selection. While he agreed common descent was falsifiable (he used the even more drastic example of the remains of a car in cambrian sediments),[13] Popper said that natural selection "is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme".[14] However, Popper later said "I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection, and I am glad to have the opportunity to make a recantation."[15] He went on to formulate natural selection in a falsifiable way and offered a more nuanced view of its status. He still felt that "Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test." However, "[t]here are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry."More interesting quotes from Popper about evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Issue_of_Darwinism
When talking about Natural Selection, he makes the point that evolution has been well tested, but natural selection less so:
The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.
(wouldnt fit on previous comment)..
I dont know the answer pvblivs, but for me the two examples, fossils out of sequence, and genes contrary to the "tree of life", seem like valid falsifiers
Oranges:
"Surely identifying them before the tests are carried out is more a philosophical argument, than practical?"
I disagree. For the "pre-cambrian rabbit" example, had it been found, a different timeline would have been proposed. It would not act as a falsifier for evolution. And "completely incapable of being placed in the tree of life..." is unmeetable. An "unknown method of genetic transfer" can always be posulated for gene sequences shared by "unrelated" species. Different species of bacteria are already known to swap genes. The idea of such a mechanism is not far-fetched.
Ultimately, the question is "does evolution make any predictions? Or do its supporters claim things as 'predictions' once they are safe?" That's why the example I gave was very practical. They knew what they were looking for. But they wouldn't commit. They kept an "out," just in case it turned out not to be there.
So you are saying that if a "pre-cambrian rabbit" was to be found, this wouldnt falsify evolution for scientists? They would "get round it" somehow? Why would they do that?
Are you arguing evolution had been subjected to a lower standard as regards the scientific method? And if so, is this an intellectual argument, rather than a personal belief that the theory of evolution is false?
Just wondering, as I'm unsure where you are coming from. Is this a serious argument that evolution has insufficient evidence, or is it just you being critical of the methods used while accepting it is in all likelihood true?
Something occurs to me pvblivs (not wishing to derail you from answering my previous question which I'd still be interested in hearing your response to).
You said
"Ultimately, the question is "does evolution make any predictions? Or do its supporters claim things as 'predictions' once they are safe?" That's why the example I gave was very practical. They knew what they were looking for. But they wouldn't commit. They kept an "out," just in case it turned out not to be there."Re the bolded part - you are saying that they gave themselves an "out", rather than being absolute in defining the falsifier. Notwithstanding Clostridiophile's point about the less mathematical nature of life history, it does occur to me that you are dismissing the validity of the experiment because of the original framing of the tests, fine in an intellectual sense, but does it negate the result? Once the tests were complete, you admit that the test was positive, the (potential) falsifier was not found.
So IF the same experiment had been done, but the pre test conditions had specified that the failure to find fusion was a potential falsifier, rather than inconclusive, you would actually accept it as the sort of evidence you seek?
Does the outcome of the experiment, rather than the original definition of the conditions, not still produce the exact same result?
"So IF the same experiment had been done, but the pre test conditions had specified that the failure to find fusion was a potential falsifier, rather than inconclusive, you would actually accept it as the sort of evidence you seek?" [Emphasis in original]
Yes I would. I seek evidence that the idea of evolution is actually tested and subject to possible falsification. But we have a case of "it's not a potential falsifier," "it's not a potential falsifier," and then, when it's safe, "it is a potential falsifier." It looks to me like nothing is allowed to be a potential falsifier, until they can be sure it won't happen.
And that's a big deal to me. You can certainly argue that I am not qualified to judge what is and is not a potential falsifier. The arguments why that should be considered a potential falsifier sound reasonable enough. So, why was it deemed not a potential falsifier until it was safe?
"Are you arguing evolution had been subjected to a lower standard as regards the scientific method? And if so, is this an intellectual argument, rather than a personal belief that the theory of evolution is false?"
Yes, that is my belief. I believe that evolution has been subjected to a lesser standard. I am not judging evolution to be false (or true for that matter.) It's plausible enough. But it looks coddled.
Fair enough pvblivs. I don't agree, but thats fine, I'm not a scientist so I'm in no position to say either way.
I think what you are looking for is an "ideal", a perfect example of the scientific method applied to this field. I'm not sure that thats needed, it certainly doesnt seem to be required by those who ARE experts in evolutionary biology.
I simply accept that the consensus is correct, although the evidence I have read about even through my layman eyes seems convincing, more importantly I dont see any alternatives. The alternatives appear to be distinctly lacking in any scientific evidence at all, ie creationism.
My understanding is that across various fields of science there exist some which have evidence which would fit your need for perfect scientific methodology, and at the other end of the scale some which have very sketchy evidence . Because of the wealth of evidence, Evolution appears to be nowhere near the bottom of the scale.
Post a Comment