Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[sentientsynth]

That's a philosophical question, when we are dealing with a scientific issue.

I like that dodge. If you don't want to talk about it, that's cool.

That is the nature of the universe.

Have you observed the entire universe eternally to verify this experimentally (scientifically)? If not, it's just a statistic.

 

[Mr Jack]

Have you observed the entire universe eternally to verify this experimentally (scientifically)? If not, it's just a statistic.

Not it's an empirically verified statement about the local universe. Since we live in the local universe, this is pragmatically sufficent. It may be that the universe operates entirely differently in different places, but it makes no difference to me.

I think the likely answer to "why is the universe uniform in its behaviour?" is because it's simpler than any alternative, but the current best answer must be "we don't know".

 

[mighty_duck]

I like that dodge. If you don't want to talk about it, that's cool.

Have you observed the entire universe eternally to verify this experimentally (scientifically)? If not, it's just a statistic.

This is not a dodge of any sort. It's very much akin to the age old question "If a tree falls in a forest with no one to witness it, does it still make a sound?"

Ask this of a scientist, and he will say yes, based on numerous other trees that have made a sound while falling.

To which you reply "But have you ever observed an unobvserved tree fall down? you are just going by statistics!"

This is why scientists do not answer that age old question, but prefer to differ it to the philosophy department down the hall. Science assumes a certain level of uniformity, based on observation.

If you maintain that nature is not uniform, please give an example.

 

[sentientsynth]

I'm not claiming nature isn't uniform. I'm claiming that it isn't scientifically proven until you verify it experimentally in every case for all time. The uniformity of nature is then only a scientific theory, which at least hypothetically may be falsified in the future. What is observed as "the uniformity of nature" may be only a temporary phenomena in the history of the universe.

SS

 

[Mr Jack]

I'm not claiming nature isn't uniform. I'm claiming that it isn't scientifically proven until you verify it experimentally in every case for all time. The uniformity of nature is then only a scientific theory, which at least hypothetically may be falsified in the future. What is observed as "the uniformity of nature" may be only a temporary phenomena in the history of the universe.

Yes, this is so. But as I pointed out earlier we do have observational evidence for the uniformity of nature for last 13.8 billion years, and at distances of up to 13 billion light years (although, strictly, we only have evidence that the universe was uniform to these distances at a time past proportional to the distance away).

 

[sentientsynth]

Yes, this is so.

Woo hoo!!

But as I pointed out earlier we do have observational evidence for the uniformity of nature for last 13.8 billion years, and at distances of up to 13 billion light years.

This assumes:
1. space has never expanded dis-uniformally.
2. the speed of light has always been 2.99792458 x 10^8 m/s

Seems to me that you're still using the uniformity of nature to prove the uniformity of nature.

SS

 

[Mr Jack]

1. space has never expanded dis-uniformally.
2. the speed of light has always been 2.99792458 x 10^8 m/s

Neither of those assumptions are required. In fact, the only assumption that is being made is that the light (and other signals) reaching our instruments are not being faked. The evidence for uniformity comes from the fact that the physical models developed by observation here on earth are borne out by observations of the behaviour of objects in space: that predictions of how the Big Bang happened based on QFT are borne out in the structure of the Cosmic Microwave Background, that the spectral patterns of stars matches that of spectral patterns observed on earth, that the movements of expelled matter from supernova matches speed of light measurements taken in Earthly laboratories; etc. etc. On the question of discontinuities of expansion, our evidence comes from the lack of observed discontinuity; any discontinuity in expansion should show up as a discontinuity in the observations of the CMB, and of spectral patterns of stars, as well as "bunching" effects in assertained distances.

Now, of course, it is <i>possible</i> that we're wrong. There could be discontinuities, across which it just so happens that changes in the behaviour of the universe exactly cancel the effect of the discontinuities and give us observed light patterns that exactly match what we'd expect without any discontinuity or change in the universes behaviour - just as it's possible that invisible fairies are responsible for gravity; working dilligently to make all the apples fall and the planets swing in their great arcs - but it's not even remotely <i>likely</i>.

So we can be confident in the uniformity of nature.

 

[sentientsynth]

Now, of course, it is <i>possible</i> that we're wrong. There could be discontinuities, across which it just so happens ...

The point is that we can't assume to know.

According to the scientific method, we must continue to observe phenomena in order to be ensured of the uniformity of the character of matter, space/time, and thermodynamics. To assume that the previously observed character of reality is an eternal property of the universe (inductive principle) is unscientific.

The brilliant atheist Bertrand Russell says it this way.

The inductive principle, however, is equally incapable of being proved by an appeal to experience. Experience might conceivably confirm the inductive principle as regards the cases that have been already examined; but as regards unexamined cases, it is the inductive principle alone that can justify any inference from what has been examined to what has not been examined. All arguments which, on the basis of experience, argue as to the future or the unexperienced parts of the past or present, assume the inductive principle; hence we can never use experience to prove the inductive principle without begging the question. [Emphasis added][Bertrand Russell, Problems of Philosophy,

With science, the case is never closed.

SS

 

[Mr Jack]

The point is that we can't assume to know.

Why not? Science makes assumptions; and those assumptions are borne out in the success of science as a pragmatic tool.

To assume that the previously observed character of reality is an eternal property of the universe (inductive principle) is unscientific.

No, it isn't. All science makes that assumption at it's very heart; without it science is simply not possible. Science cannot be used to justify itself; just as logic cannot be used to justify deduction and induction cannot be used to justify induction. Which brings me neatly back to my earlier point about certainty.

(It also, as an aside, runs into my big beef with the Philosophy of Science which is that it spends its whole time assuming logic as if it has an a priori primacy over induction)

 

[aharvey]

plot summary?

plot summary?

Can someone help me out here? Jim, in many many words, is striving to answer the question of whether evolution is science with discussions of the fundamental source of all logic. I am better versed in graphic design than in philosophy, so I confess to struggling with the chain of logic here. As I am a professional biologist, I freely acknowledge that I accept the scientist's view of science more than the fundamentalist theologian's view of science, and therefore may be overlooking or misrepresenting Jim's position. I wonder if y'all can help me distill the essential points fairly, accurately and concisely?

“Evolution is not science.”
- “Evolution is not science because it is illogical.”
-- “Evolution is illogical because it contradicts God, who is the source of all logic."
--- "We infer that God is the source of all logic because He created the universe and everything in it, which would thus include logic."
--- “Evolution contradicts God specifically by contradicting God's version of what actually happened."
---- "God told us what actually happened through His Word, also known as the Bible."
----- "All events that are reported in the Bible happened exactly as originally written, and we have the complete and accurate version of what was originally written."
[sorry, I'm missing the justification for the above two claims]
----- "The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is."
------ "God tells us it is His Word through His Word, also known as the Bible."

Replacing "evolution" with other scientific theories or discplines seems to support this interpretation. "The Big Bang Theory" is not science, for the reasons given. "Cell Theory," "Germ Theory," "Chemistry," "Ecology," on the other hand, are not disqualified as science.

I want to make this as accurate as possible. If you don't think this accurately describes the line of reasoning, please help me clarify it. But make sure that your reasoning would properly identify evolution as non-science and other scientific disciplines as either science or non-science.

 

[Stratnerd]

According to the scientific method, we must continue to observe phenomena in order to be ensured of the uniformity of the character of matter, space/time, and thermodynamics. To assume that the previously observed character of reality is an eternal property of the universe (inductive principle) is unscientific.

I take you are not a scientist! I've never seen any arguments like this or the ones being put foward in the main ring come out a scientist which actually get out of their comfy chairs and do science (and make contributions to knowledge). The aforementioned arguments come from folks in the other hall that sit in their comfy reading chairs to perform feats of mental "mastication" and almost never contribute anything useful - althought they make pure thought more interesting (if you have that kind of time).

There are a few that have made important contributions to science such as, but not limited to Bacon, Kuhn and Popper. Look at the types of arguments these guys made compared to the types of arguments floating around these pages.

You guys need to stop stroking your medulla oblongatas and actually sit down, or more appropriately stand up and get your boot on, and do some science.

aaaah... that felt good.

 

[Stratnerd]

should I add... "I'm in trouble now"?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

should I add... "I'm in trouble now"?

Stratnerd I would like thank you for your efforts to this point in BR IX. You have done an excellent job. I was really hoping to get a person that would put in good effort against Hilston because I knew Hilston would be well prepared and I must tell you I am very happy with your effort. :up:

 

[Johnny]

aharvey, looks good to me

 

[SUTG]

I'm not claiming nature isn't uniform. I'm claiming that it isn't scientifically proven until you verify it experimentally in every case for all time. The uniformity of nature is then only a scientific theory, which at least hypothetically may be falsified in the future. What is observed as "the uniformity of nature" may be only a temporary phenomena in the history of the universe.

SS

Science doesn't really assume the uniformity of nature. It concludes the uniformity of nature. Of course, that conclusion is tentative, and not the sort of conclusion we can achieve in the fields of mathematics or logic.

We can ask whether or not the sun will rise next Thursday, but we cannot answer with complete confidence since we do not know the future. Still, most of us will guess in the affirmative.

How does the Christian God change any of this?

 

[Stratnerd]

Thanks Knight!

 

[mighty_duck]

Can someone help me out here? Jim, in many many words, is striving to answer the question of whether evolution is science with discussions of the fundamental source of all logic. I am better versed in graphic design than in philosophy, so I confess to struggling with the chain of logic here. As I am a professional biologist, I freely acknowledge that I accept the scientist's view of science more than the fundamentalist theologian's view of science, and therefore may be overlooking or misrepresenting Jim's position. I wonder if y'all can help me distill the essential points fairly, accurately and concisely?

“Evolution is not science.”
- “Evolution is not science because it is illogical.”
-- “Evolution is illogical because it contradicts God, who is the source of all logic."
--- "We infer that God is the source of all logic because He created the universe and everything in it, which would thus include logic."
--- “Evolution contradicts God specifically by contradicting God's version of what actually happened."
---- "God told us what actually happened through His Word, also known as the Bible."
----- "All events that are reported in the Bible happened exactly as originally written, and we have the complete and accurate version of what was originally written."
[sorry, I'm missing the justification for the above two claims]
----- "The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is."
------ "God tells us it is His Word through His Word, also known as the Bible."

Replacing "evolution" with other scientific theories or discplines seems to support this interpretation. "The Big Bang Theory" is not science, for the reasons given. "Cell Theory," "Germ Theory," "Chemistry," "Ecology," on the other hand, are not disqualified as science.

I want to make this as accurate as possible. If you don't think this accurately describes the line of reasoning, please help me clarify it. But make sure that your reasoning would properly identify evolution as non-science and other scientific disciplines as either science or non-science.

That's pretty close to Jim's argument. I bet your logic senses are screaming "circular logic". The way he gets around this is by presupposing 1) God of the Bible, 2) Inerrancy of the Bible. So these two are axioms in his worldview, need no support, and support everything else. So far so good, as this is all logically VALID!

The next step is where his argument messes up, when he infers that an atheist worldview is irrational, and so is every other worldview. This is wrong because he is judging one logic system, using another logic system. The trick is that his logic system has an axiom that explains an axiom of the other system. He tries to obfuscate the fact that his axioms are just as internally unfounded, by defining them as founded.

 

[aharvey]

That's pretty close to Jim's argument. I bet your logic senses are screaming "circular logic". The way he gets around this is by presupposing 1) God of the Bible, 2) Inerrancy of the Bible. So these two are axioms in his worldview, need no support, and support everything else. So far so good, as this is all logically VALID!

I'm not exactly buying this (amazingly enough). First, I have yet to see where anyone has explained the difference between a "presupposition" and an "assumption." Without a valid and relevant distinction, "presupposing one's conclusions" still counts as circular logic. Why do I insert "relevant" here? Because the way people use the word "presupposition" here, one gets the sense that they are not referring to the kind of assumption that scientists use, which we might call a "working assumption." We make assumptions so we can do our work, but we know that one reason hypotheses fail is because our assumptions are incorrect. Jim and his ilk, however, quite explicitly remove the consideration of their presupposition from the table; they know with certain, sure, unwavering, unshakable faith that it is correct. However, this is not a relevant difference when it comes to circular logic.

The other point that I want to make is there is only one presupposition here: the second one (Biblical inerrancy). The first statement follows directly and inevitably from the second.

The next step is where his argument messes up, when he infers that an atheist worldview is irrational, and so is every other worldview. This is wrong because he is judging one logic system, using another logic system. The trick is that his logic system has an axiom that explains an axiom of the other system. He tries to obfuscate the fact that his axioms are just as internally unfounded, by defining them as founded.

I confess I have little patience for these little word games, especially as used to attack evolution. It reeks of the typical Creationist tactic of attacking from vantage points as far away as possible from what evolutionary theory actual deals with: information theory, the big bang theory, laws of thermodynamics, the origin of life, the ultimate basis for logical thought ... evolutionary theory says nothing about any of these (cripes, there are no living organisms mentioned in these arguments at all!), and makes no assumptions concerning them any different from any other branch of scientific inquiry. It's as if creationists have learned that evolutionary biologists know what they are talking about, so let's find areas that they don't know so much about, which has pretty much forced biology out of the discussion altogether.

But in any case, it seems to me that the argument: "IF my presuppositions are correct, then anything that contradicts them is incorrect" is inevitably correct but trivial. IF you're right, then (duh!) you're right! That's hardly justification for us all to conclude that you are right!

 

[Highline]

Thanks to the debaters for their efforts, it has been interesting reading.

I agree that the series of questions in the last few posts fairly sum up the creationist's arguments. I was surprised that TOL would use a bible literalist for this debate, but both debaters seem intelligent and thoughtful. This must be hard work.

One question I have for the bible literalists out there (and I realize this is probably on the wrong thread) is how do they support the story of Noah? The flood, possible, but getting two of every animal one one ship, and for those animals to live and not eat each other? Or die of disease?

Second question. Younger earth than the millions of years required for evolution, maybe. But only 6,000 years old seem unrealistic. There are 20,000 years of ice layers on the greenland ice shelf, the science of measuring them is pretty basic (it is colder in winter, warmer in summer, like tree rings). I'd be interested to hear anyone's thoughts.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Thanks to the debaters for their efforts, it has been interesting reading.

I agree that the series of questions in the last few posts fairly sum up the creationist's arguments. I was surprised that TOL would use a bible literalist for this debate, but both debaters seem intelligent and thoughtful. This must be hard work.

One question I have for the bible literalists out there (and I realize this is probably on the wrong thread) is how do they support the story of Noah? The flood, possible, but getting two of every animal one one ship, and for those animals to live and not eat each other? Or die of disease?

Second question. Younger earth than the millions of years required for evolution, maybe. But only 6,000 years old seem unrealistic. There are 20,000 years of ice layers on the greenland ice shelf, the science of measuring them is pretty basic (it is colder in winter, warmer in summer, like tree rings). I'd be interested to hear anyone's thoughts.

These are great questions but lets not get off track on this thread OK?

Feel free to start any threads you wish here.

Thank you very much for your input.