nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 433:
Line 433: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→You Just Gotta Be Kidding Me: Logic and other things
As for the issue of certainty, scientists can not say they are 100% certain of anything, to do so would imply they know every little detail of the study and therefore have evaluated all possibilities. This is impossibility since our techniques and technologies are always evolving to allow for finer degrees of understanding. For me to state that we are 100% certain of anything would be a lie. Yes, we have a very high degree of certainty that the basic premise of evolution is true; however we can never be 100% certain. My criticism of bible literalists (Darwinist is an incorrect term as well) is that be rejecting any evidence contrary to their belief they are by default implying that their view is 100% certain, that my friend is the difference.
As for the issue of certainty, scientists can not say they are 100% certain of anything, to do so would imply they know every little detail of the study and therefore have evaluated all possibilities. This is impossibility since our techniques and technologies are always evolving to allow for finer degrees of understanding. For me to state that we are 100% certain of anything would be a lie. Yes, we have a very high degree of certainty that the basic premise of evolution is true; however we can never be 100% certain. My criticism of bible literalists (Darwinist is an incorrect term as well) is that be rejecting any evidence contrary to their belief they are by default implying that their view is 100% certain, that my friend is the difference.
"So in summary, your idealistic word picture of unbiased objective evolutionary scientists vs. biased, unobjective creationists is nothing but a fantasy." I am sorry but the logic and evidence says it is more truth than fantasy (athough there are exceptions).--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 12:44, 31 January 2008 (EST)
"So in summary, your idealistic word picture of unbiased objective evolutionary scientists vs. biased, unobjective creationists is nothing but a fantasy." I am sorry but the logic and evidence says it is more truth than fantasy (athough there are exceptions).--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 12:44, 31 January 2008 (EST)
: "''my example about feudal Chinese scientists is about world view not if the world was millions or billions of years old. I was showing how the relationship of scientific research is not limited by personal world view''": I understand that, but what if Chinese scientists, not explicitly rejecting the biblical view (because, as you say, they didn't have the Bible) also came up with the idea that the world was only thousands of years old? My point is that the reason that European scientists came up with millions of years was because they rejected the biblical history. Chinese scientists, not rejecting biblical history, would not (in my opinion) come up with millions of years.
:"''Let’s change my analogy a bit, [big snip] Which one is testable? ''": Neither. Both are supposed to have happened in the unobserved past. Some details ''are'' testable, but this applies to both. The geologist can test rates of erosion to see if his story is consistent with that, but by the same token the Indian can test his idea that "nothing could have placed the stones upon the pillars" to see if he can, like a good scientist, disprove that statement.
:"''...scientists in general are under much scrutiny for their work and conclusions. To report false information has drastic affects...''": In theory, and in practice up to a point. But read [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5613/ this]. Your picture was rosier than reality.
:"''...theologians['] ... work does not provide a medium to which it can be measured''": Huh? The Bible is the standard that their work is measured by, so you are wrong.
:"''...the case of creationary scientists it is their worldview that defines them ...''": Just as evolutionists are defined by "naturalism". So what's the difference?
:"''I would agree that evolutionary scientists and primordial chemists work on the principle that matter is all there is.''": Then you agree that they are rejecting possible explanations ''a priori'', and therefore give up any claim to have considered all possibilities.
:"''If they did not then their research would be convoluted with unlimited possibilities preventing them from pinpointing anything.''": Not true. Accepting that there are more possibilities than just the material doesn't mean that ''anything'' is possible. That's a non-sequitur.
:"''Astronomy is based on a materialist view of the universe where astrology is based on a spiritual view, which is considered a science?''": Archaeology rejects the view that matter can explain all it's findings and is prepared to invoke the idea of an intelligent creator (for stone tools, etc.). Yet it is still considered a science. The difference is not material vs. spiritual, but evidence vs. no evidence.
:"''The fact is there are a few scientists that do mix their worldview with their work...''": No, they all do, to some extent. Part of a scientist's worldview is that he can trust his senses to make observations. All scientists "mix" this part of their worldview with their work, else they would not be scientists. Most also mix in their worldview that matter is all that they have to consider.
:"''... which happens to cause the scientific community to correct the work by rebuttal and refuting it.''": Unless they agree with it.
:"''The problem with this is that the matter of empirical data.''": That is a problem for both sides when discussing ''history'', which is what microbes-to-man evolution is.
:"''To support much of what is claimed by creation scientists would mean that several basic principles of physics have changed over time...''": Oh? The only proposals I can recall that basic principles of physics have changed have been by evolutionary scientists in talking about the first few moments after the Big Bang.
:"''...I disagree with your assumption of lack of accuracy and precession.''": As we are talking about accuracy, should I point out that the other word is "precision"? :-) Seriously, I can't remember talking about accuracy and precision, and a search of this page doesn't show those words being used except by you.
:"''...in actual research publications you do not find unsubstantiated claims about the scientist’s worldviews...''": Perhaps not, but just because they don't put their worldviews in as part of their argument doesn't mean that it doesn't underpin their thinking and arguments.
:"''...scientists’ personal views are one thing but the scientific community views are another...''": That doesn't really make sense. If we are talking about the "scientific community's" ''views'', then we are talking about the ''views'' of the majority of the individual scientists. Sure some views will differ from the majority, but others will ''be'' the "community's" views.
:"''For the most part Gould and Ruse could careless about God.''": True, but that is irrelevant to their views about what part religion had to play in the views of others such as Darwin.
:Your circular argument description is wrong. The logic you describe is valid logic, not circular reasoning. Here are two example of a logically-valid argument (from [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1860/ here]):
::1) All whales have backbones;
::2) Moby Dick is a whale;
::∴ Moby Dick has a backbone
:
::1) All dogs are reptiles;
::2) All reptiles have scales;
::∴ All dogs have scales.
: The second one has a false premise, and a false conclusion, but it is still a valid argument. Your examples are all of ''valid'' arguments, but for which you question the premise.
:A circular argument, by contrast, is of the form "P is true because Q is true, and Q is true because P is true."[http://www.christianlogic.com/articles/short_list_of_fallacies.htm]. To provide an example:
::Creation is not science, therefore creationists are not true scientists, therefore no true scientist supports creation, therefore creation is not science. See how the conclusion was the starting premise? This is a circular argument, because the conclusion assumes itself as the premise.
:But your examples are not following this form.
:"''My criticism of bible literalists ... is that be rejecting any evidence contrary to their belief ...''": This is a straw-man argument. Creationists have ''different explanations'' for the evidence; they don't ''reject'' the evidence.
:"''[by] rejecting any evidence contrary to their belief they are by default implying that their view is 100% certain''": Apart from the straw-man I've just mentioned, this is false. Rejecting an explanation does not mean that they are 100% certain that they are correct, and in any case the same argument can be used of evolutionists: By rejecting the creationary explanation "they are by default implying that their view is 100% certain"
:"''...that my friend is the difference...''": But there is no difference!
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 6 February 2008 (EST)