Difference between revisions of "Logic of possibility"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(adding quote on teapot)
(adding quote by Smith)
Line 7: Line 7:
 
|pages=26
 
|pages=26
 
|isbn=978-0-89051-597-6
 
|isbn=978-0-89051-597-6
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=gvyHquVubDoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hedtke+The+secrets+of+the+sixth+edition&source=bl&ots=VQBk7unu95&sig=3-pYZsIj2vzBHgcIbYEpexlVc9s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FsOGUO2kCIKJ4gS-tYCoBg&redir_esc=y}}</ref> Effectively, the logic of possibility replaces one unknown mystery with another.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/>{{#tag:ref|For example, the assumably unknown causes of homosexual behaviour are replaced by insisting that such behaviour is result of operation of so called '' 'evolutionary enigma' ''.<ref>{{cite web|title=Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development|author=William R. Rice, Urban Friberg and Sergey Gavrilets |publisher=The Quarterly Review of Biology|date=(December 2012|page=343-368|acessdate=03.03.2013|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/10.1086/668167.pdf?acceptTC=true|quote=This paper argues that sexually antagonistic selection can also be involved in epigenetic effects and explain the enigmatic high prevalence of several fitness-reducing human characters. ... Homosexuality is frequently considered to be an unusual phenotype because it represents an evolutionary enigma —a trait that is expected to reduce Darwinian fitness, yet it persists at substantial frequency across many different (possibly all) human populations.}}</ref>|group=note}} [[Darwin]] was criticised for using this method in [[The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection|The Origin of Species]] for there in it is assumed that ''the mere possibility of imagining'' a series of steps of transition from one condition of organs to another is to be accepted as a reason for believing that such transition has taken place.<ref>{{cite book|title=Darwin and the Darwinian revolution|author=Gertrude Himmelfarb|publisher=Peter Smith|year=1967|page=273,274,334|url=http://books.google.no/books?ei=StgxUcXSEMSK4AS9qoBg&id=C0OTeANFU88C&dq=himmelfarb+Darwin+and+the+darwinian+revolution&q=transitions#search_anchor}}</ref> Adopting the logic of possibility is an unscientific way of avoiding criticism of a [[hypothesis]] and attempt to free it from the [[burden of proof]] because a critic could reply to conjecture and imagination only with conjecture of his or her own, what would pointlessly lead nowhere.<ref name="Hedtke"/>{{#tag:ref|cf.''"As my colleague, the physical chemist Peter Atkins, puts it, we must be equally agnostic about the theory that there is a teapot in orbit around the planet Pluto. We can’t disprove it. But that doesn’t mean the theory that there is a teapot is on level terms with the theory that there isn’t"'' Bertrand Russell (1958), quoted in Ars Disputandi<ref>{{cite web |title=Absence of Evidence, Evidence of Absence, and the Atheist’s Teapot|author=Brian Garvey|publisher=Ars Disputandi|year=2010|volume=10|issn=1566–5399|acessdate=03.03.2013|url=http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000339/article.pdf}}</ref>|group=note}} The logic of possibility is native to [[postmodern science]] and [[scientism]], respectively; and it violates the borderline, until recently respected with dignity by great scientists, between what is known and what is not.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/> The counterfactual reasoning inherent to logic of possibility should not be confused with [[Gedanken experiment|Gedanken (thought) experiment]], an legitimate device of the imagination used, inter alia by brilliant practitioners like, for example, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, and Maxwell{{#tag:ref|For example, [[Maxwell’s intelligent agent]], referred to by secular scientist as 'Maxwell's demon', was a [[Gedanken experiment]] to help us to understand the dissipation of energy in [[nature]].<ref>{{cite book|title=Information and Information Flow: An Introduction|author=Manuel Eugen Bremer, Daniel Cohnitz|publisher=Ontos Verlag|year=2004|page=17|isbn=978-3937202471|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=NSsUhHlysrcC&pg=PA17&dq=Maxwell's+thought+experiment+dramatized+the+fact&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7G4zUe3JMOmk4ATJsIHQDw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Maxwell's%20thought%20experiment%20dramatized%20the%20fact&f=false|quote= This thought experiment was intended by Maxwell to dramatize the fact that the second law is a statistical principle and that it is not certain that the entropy in any case increases.}}</ref>|group=note}}, to investigate the nature of things without making factual claims about what had allegedly happened in the unobservable history of these things.     
+
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=gvyHquVubDoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hedtke+The+secrets+of+the+sixth+edition&source=bl&ots=VQBk7unu95&sig=3-pYZsIj2vzBHgcIbYEpexlVc9s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FsOGUO2kCIKJ4gS-tYCoBg&redir_esc=y}}</ref> Effectively, the logic of possibility replaces one unknown mystery with another.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/>{{#tag:ref|For example, the assumably unknown causes of homosexual behaviour are replaced by insisting that such behaviour is result of operation of so called '' 'evolutionary enigma' ''.<ref>{{cite web|title=Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development|author=William R. Rice, Urban Friberg and Sergey Gavrilets |publisher=The Quarterly Review of Biology|date=(December 2012|page=343-368|acessdate=03.03.2013|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/10.1086/668167.pdf?acceptTC=true|quote=This paper argues that sexually antagonistic selection can also be involved in epigenetic effects and explain the enigmatic high prevalence of several fitness-reducing human characters. ... Homosexuality is frequently considered to be an unusual phenotype because it represents an evolutionary enigma —a trait that is expected to reduce Darwinian fitness, yet it persists at substantial frequency across many different (possibly all) human populations.}}</ref>|group=note}} [[Darwin]] was criticised for using this method in [[The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection|The Origin of Species]] for there in it is assumed that ''the mere possibility of imagining'' a series of steps of transition from one condition of organs to another is to be accepted as a reason for believing that such transition has taken place.<ref>{{cite book|title=Darwin and the Darwinian revolution|author=Gertrude Himmelfarb|publisher=Peter Smith|year=1967|page=273,274,334|url=http://books.google.no/books?ei=StgxUcXSEMSK4AS9qoBg&id=C0OTeANFU88C&dq=himmelfarb+Darwin+and+the+darwinian+revolution&q=transitions#search_anchor}}</ref>{{#tag:ref|cf.''"Today it is simply unscientific to claim that the fantastically reduced entropy of the human brain, of the dolphin's sound lens, and of the eye of a fossilised trilobite simply "happened", for experimental experience has shown that such miracles just do not "happen"."''<ref>{{cite book |title=The natural sciences know nothing of evolution|author=Wilder Smith|publisher=Word for Today|year=2003|page=146|isbn=978-1931713504|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Qbr7AQAACAAJ&dq=The+natural+sciences+know+nothing+of+evolution&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bJozUcalHemL4ATj-4CoAQ&redir_esc=y}}</ref>|group=note}} Adopting the logic of possibility is an unscientific way of avoiding criticism of a [[hypothesis]] and attempt to free it from the [[burden of proof]] because a critic could reply to conjecture and imagination only with conjecture of his or her own, what would pointlessly lead nowhere.<ref name="Hedtke"/>{{#tag:ref|cf.''"As my colleague, the physical chemist Peter Atkins, puts it, we must be equally agnostic about the theory that there is a teapot in orbit around the planet Pluto. We can’t disprove it. But that doesn’t mean the theory that there is a teapot is on level terms with the theory that there isn’t"'' Bertrand Russell (1958), quoted in Ars Disputandi<ref>{{cite web |title=Absence of Evidence, Evidence of Absence, and the Atheist’s Teapot|author=Brian Garvey|publisher=Ars Disputandi|year=2010|volume=10|issn=1566–5399|acessdate=03.03.2013|url=http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000339/article.pdf}}</ref>|group=note}} The logic of possibility is native to [[postmodern science]] and [[scientism]], respectively; and it violates the borderline, until recently respected with dignity by great scientists, between what is known and what is not.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/> The counterfactual reasoning inherent to logic of possibility should not be confused with [[Gedanken experiment|Gedanken (thought) experiment]], an legitimate device of the imagination used, inter alia by brilliant practitioners like, for example, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, and Maxwell{{#tag:ref|For example, [[Maxwell’s intelligent agent]], referred to by secular scientist as 'Maxwell's demon', was a [[Gedanken experiment]] to help us to understand the dissipation of energy in [[nature]].<ref>{{cite book|title=Information and Information Flow: An Introduction|author=Manuel Eugen Bremer, Daniel Cohnitz|publisher=Ontos Verlag|year=2004|page=17|isbn=978-3937202471|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=NSsUhHlysrcC&pg=PA17&dq=Maxwell's+thought+experiment+dramatized+the+fact&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7G4zUe3JMOmk4ATJsIHQDw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Maxwell's%20thought%20experiment%20dramatized%20the%20fact&f=false|quote= This thought experiment was intended by Maxwell to dramatize the fact that the second law is a statistical principle and that it is not certain that the entropy in any case increases.}}</ref>|group=note}}, to investigate the nature of things without making factual claims about what had allegedly happened in the unobservable history of these things.     
  
 
==Adopting the logic of possibility in the Evolutionary thought==
 
==Adopting the logic of possibility in the Evolutionary thought==

Revision as of 14:52, 3 March 2013

The logic of possibility is a peculiarly imaginative, inventive mode of argument. Unlike conventional logic, where the compound of possibilities does not result in a greater possibility or probability, but in a lesser one, the logic of possibility is one by which possibilities are assumed to add up to probability.[1] Effectively, the logic of possibility replaces one unknown mystery with another.[2][note 1] Darwin was criticised for using this method in The Origin of Species for there in it is assumed that the mere possibility of imagining a series of steps of transition from one condition of organs to another is to be accepted as a reason for believing that such transition has taken place.[4][note 2] Adopting the logic of possibility is an unscientific way of avoiding criticism of a hypothesis and attempt to free it from the burden of proof because a critic could reply to conjecture and imagination only with conjecture of his or her own, what would pointlessly lead nowhere.[1][note 3] The logic of possibility is native to postmodern science and scientism, respectively; and it violates the borderline, until recently respected with dignity by great scientists, between what is known and what is not.[2] The counterfactual reasoning inherent to logic of possibility should not be confused with Gedanken (thought) experiment, an legitimate device of the imagination used, inter alia by brilliant practitioners like, for example, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, and Maxwell[note 4], to investigate the nature of things without making factual claims about what had allegedly happened in the unobservable history of these things.

Adopting the logic of possibility in the Evolutionary thought

Following the Darwin, the adherents of Theory of evolution also often encompass the logic of possibility in their asserts implying that things virtually construct themselves, the typical example is the book Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins was criticised by Berlinski that[2]:
"It is one thing, however, to appeal to a path up Mount Improbable, quite another to demonstrate its existence. Dawkins persuades himself that because such a path might exist, further argument is unnecessary."
Impediments are simply directed to disappear by adopting language terms like:
  • "There is no difficulty"
  • "there is definite tendency in the right direction"
  • "it is not at all difficult to imagine"

The true character of Darwinian hypotheses has been exemplified by William Hopkins' criticism in which he pointed out that Darwin, unlike Newton, made at any time but little use of the verb "to prove" in any of its inflections. His primary formula was "I think," "I am convinced," "I believe," and not "I have proved"[8]:

  • "We may I think safely assume"
  • "I think there can be little doubt that"
  • "There is, also, I think, some probability in the view"
  • "I am convinced of their accuracy; and if I had space, I could show that they are conformable with my theory"[9]

Although it is not a fault to make such modest forms of expressions, they are in fact a formulae of a creed and not of a scientific theory.[8]

Notes

  1. For example, the assumably unknown causes of homosexual behaviour are replaced by insisting that such behaviour is result of operation of so called 'evolutionary enigma' .[3]
  2. cf."Today it is simply unscientific to claim that the fantastically reduced entropy of the human brain, of the dolphin's sound lens, and of the eye of a fossilised trilobite simply "happened", for experimental experience has shown that such miracles just do not "happen"."[5]
  3. cf."As my colleague, the physical chemist Peter Atkins, puts it, we must be equally agnostic about the theory that there is a teapot in orbit around the planet Pluto. We can’t disprove it. But that doesn’t mean the theory that there is a teapot is on level terms with the theory that there isn’t" Bertrand Russell (1958), quoted in Ars Disputandi[6]
  4. For example, Maxwell’s intelligent agent, referred to by secular scientist as 'Maxwell's demon', was a Gedanken experiment to help us to understand the dissipation of energy in nature.[7]

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Randal Hedtke (2010). Secrets of the Sixth Edition. Master Books, 26. ISBN 978-0-89051-597-6. 
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 David Berlinski (2009). "Denying Darwin: David Berlinski & Critics", The Deniable Darwin. Seattle, USA: Discovery Institute Press (reprinted from Commentary February 1998 by permission), 143, 231, 345, 377. ISBN 978-0-9790141-2-3. “In reaching this conclusion he has replaced one mystery with another. ...Until recently, the great physicists have … attempted with dignity to respect the distinction between what is known and what is not. ...The patch does only what they have told it to do. ...” 
  3. William R. Rice, Urban Friberg and Sergey Gavrilets ((December 2012). Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development. The Quarterly Review of Biology. “This paper argues that sexually antagonistic selection can also be involved in epigenetic effects and explain the enigmatic high prevalence of several fitness-reducing human characters. ... Homosexuality is frequently considered to be an unusual phenotype because it represents an evolutionary enigma —a trait that is expected to reduce Darwinian fitness, yet it persists at substantial frequency across many different (possibly all) human populations.”
  4. Gertrude Himmelfarb (1967). Darwin and the Darwinian revolution. Peter Smith. 
  5. Wilder Smith (2003). The natural sciences know nothing of evolution. Word for Today. ISBN 978-1931713504. 
  6. Brian Garvey (2010). Absence of Evidence, Evidence of Absence, and the Atheist’s Teapot. Ars Disputandi.
  7. Manuel Eugen Bremer, Daniel Cohnitz (2004). Information and Information Flow: An Introduction. Ontos Verlag. ISBN 978-3937202471. “This thought experiment was intended by Maxwell to dramatize the fact that the second law is a statistical principle and that it is not certain that the entropy in any case increases.” 
  8. 8.0 8.1 David L. Hull (1973). Darwin and his critics: the reception of Darwin's theory of evolution by the scientific community. Harvard University Press. 
  9. Charles Darwin. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for life. 

See Also