An Open Challenge To Creationists

[TagliatelliMonster]

And that is subjective in you and a result of a combination of reasoning and feelings. You wouldn't call it BS, unless there was feelings involved.

Look here:
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

No. Au contraire.

Testing against reality serves exactly to remove subjectivity from the equation as much as possible.

You talk as if believing in undetectable unicorns pulling you down is an equally valid idea as mass generating gravitational fields that affect other objects with mass.

I call BS. It is not equally valid by any means. It is not equally rationally justified to believe on or the other.

One is supported by evidence and the other is not.
And it makes a world of difference in terms of validity and plausibility of the statements.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Certainty is not relevant in some forms of science.

And that comment isn't relevant to the actual point I was making.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay, here is a wall of text:
Coherentism in Epistemology | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I'm not interested in walls of text.
I'm interested in you answering my questions in your own words.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. Au contraire.

Testing against reality serves exactly to remove subjectivity from the equation as much as possible.

You talk as if believing in undetectable unicorns pulling you down is an equally valid idea as mass generating gravitational fields that affect other objects with mass.

I call BS. It is not equally valid by any means. It is not equally rationally justified to believe on or the other.

One is supported by evidence and the other is not.
And it makes a world of difference in terms of validity and plausibility of the statements.

You are doing philosophy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And that comment isn't relevant to the actual point I was making.

Some forms of science don't rely on certainty.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not interested in walls of text.
I'm interested in you answering my questions in your own words.

Okay!

There is no single, universal methodology for knowledge or universal set of methodologies for knowledge, which can eliminate cognitive relativism.

That is simple to test and we have already done so. We cognitively disagree about how to understand knowledge and thus it is a case of cognitive relativism.

 

[shmogie]

I actually talked with someone once who believed in the creation myths. His explanation was that God created everything just like the Bible says and then changed the laws of the universe to make it appear that the Bible was wrong as a test of faith.

I did not agree, of course, but at least he did not ignore the evidence. Rather he just waved a logical magic wand to dismiss it as being false.

That's nonsense

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are doing philosophy.

Nice dodge.

I'm explaining why not all ideas are equally valid, like you seem to be saying, and how it is evidence that makes all the difference.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Some forms of science don't rely on certainty.

No form of science does.
Science doesn't deal in absolute certainties.

It would help the discussion along if you would start to realise exactly how science is done.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's nonsense

Tell it to @dad
He might not be saying that god changed everything for the purpose of a test of faith, but he sure believes that god changed everything in terms of natural laws.

Don't underestimate the amount of crazy that some fundies get into.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay!

There is no single, universal methodology for knowledge or universal set of methodologies for knowledge, which can eliminate cognitive relativism.

That is simple to test and we have already done so. We cognitively disagree about how to understand knowledge and thus it is a case of cognitive relativism.

You are again not answering the questions that I actually asked.
Try again...

For reference, here are the questions once more (3rd time... Have a feeling there is going to be a 4th following soon....):

When you say "x is true / accurate", then what is it exactly that you mean by "true / accurate", it not "properly reflects reality"?

And if you agree that what it means is "properly reflecting reality", how can one see if an idea properly reflects reality, if not by testing the statement against reality - the result of which would yield evidence in support or in contradiction of the statement being tested?

How do you figure out if a statement accuratly reflects reality, if not by actually testing it against reality? Which is to say, through evidence?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nice dodge.

I'm explaining why not all ideas are equally valid, like you seem to be saying, and how it is evidence that makes all the difference.

Valid is a process in your brain. When you compare 2 or more ideas, you compare them based on a standard.
Now some standards are based on quantitative measurements derived for international scientific measurement; e.g. length.

So here is the question: Are all standards for comparing based on quantitative measurements?

That can be tested, ask enough humans. They will answer differently: Don't know, don't understand, don't care, yes or no! There might be other answers but you get the idea.

Now you are a scientist, but you are not a scientist within natural or hard science. You are at the "opposite" end of science. It is as soft as it gets, because now it is subjective without any end in sight.
So back to "Don't know, don't understand, don't care, yes or no!" If you know explain all the answer expect the one you consider valid, away as incorrect, you haven't explained, how the other answers work in themselves.
You haven't explained your set of observations with science. You have explained a part of the observations away as irrelevant.

So now explain how invalid works in humans. What is it, that goes on when different humans gives different answers?
And here it is for this thread:
What goes on when different humans gives different answer to metaphysics and ontology?
So far you have not shown any ability to explain that as with science. You have only shown that you consider your own standard valid and therefore all others standard invalid. But you haven't explained how that works?
Now do science, as you claim you can. Explain how invalid works as invalid and not that it is invalid based on your standard.

Regards
Mikkel

PS I am from the soft end and you are from the hard end of science. Don't assume that the actual methods are the same for subjective(soft) and objective(hard). If you do that, you can't explain subjective as subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No form of science does.
Science doesn't deal in absolute certainties.

It would help the discussion along if you would start to realise exactly how science is done.

And if you understood the difference between hard and soft science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are again not answering the questions that I actually asked.
Try again...

For reference, here are the questions once more (3rd time... Have a feeling there is going to be a 4th following soon....):

When you say "x is true / accurate", then what is it exactly that you mean by "true / accurate", it not "properly reflects reality"?

And if you agree that what it means is "properly reflecting reality", how can one see if an idea properly reflects reality, if not by testing the statement against reality - the result of which would yield evidence in support or in contradiction of the statement being tested?

How do you figure out if a statement accuratly reflects reality, if not by actually testing it against reality? Which is to say, through evidence?

I use another standard that your standard of "accurately reflects reality".
Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience.
philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies

You are from the first tradition as through history and culture. I am from the second. The technical word is phenomenology.
You explain reality as it reflects reality. I explain reality as experienced by humans.
So we used different standards for truth in effect.

We are doing base philosophy as for different standards for truth. And you assume there is only one correct standard for truth.
There is not.

 

[Polymath257]

And if you understood the difference between hard and soft science.

The term 'soft science' is usually a way to get non-scientific areas of study to be labeled as scientific.

To the extent they *are* science, they will be 'hard'. If you cannot test your ideas through observation, then you are not doing science. If your results are not repeatable, then you are not doing science.

When I took a psychology class in college, one of the questions on the first exam was whether psychology is a science. The expected answer was yes. The correct answer was, of course, no. Perhaps at some point in the future psychology will become a science. But it is not there yet. At best, it is at the level of the Babylonians collecting data on the location of objects in the sky compared to Newtonian physics describing the solar system.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The term 'soft science' is usually a way to get non-scientific areas of study to be labeled as scientific.

To the extent they *are* science, they will be 'hard'. If you cannot test your ideas through observation, then you are not doing science. If your results are not repeatable, then you are not doing science.

When I took a psychology class in college, one of the questions on the first exam was whether psychology is a science. The expected answer was yes. The correct answer was, of course, no. Perhaps at some point in the future psychology will become a science. But it is not there yet. At best, it is at the level of the Babylonians collecting data on the location of objects in the sky compared to Newtonian physics describing the solar system.

We are playing culture. Your definition of, what makes science science, is itself soft and not hard; i.e. it is (inter-)subjective(i.e. cultural) and not science. What makes science science, is cultural.
I am of another culture, where there are 3 kinds of science: Natural science(your hard), cultural science(hard and soft) and humaniora(soft as it deals with subjectivity, yet has methodologies)(not humanities as art).
There is no science as such, because science are 3 different areas.
In Denmark we don't have science, we have nature science, cultural science and human science.

Stop taking your own culture for granted as the objective standard to evaluate all other cultures.
Be a skeptic and don't take your own culture for granted. If you are not skeptical, I will do it for you and point out the cultural aspect.
Stop taking your own culture for granted!!!

So here is what you are doing in effect: I subjectively declare only the objective empirical method as science.

"If you cannot test your ideas through observation, then you are not doing science. If your results are not repeatable, then you are not doing science." That is 2 subjective rules.

 

[Shaul]

.

.

Present your best case for creationism---specifically, "the religious doctrine
that all living things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an
omnipotent creator, and not gradually evolved or developed"*---without
referencing evolution or any of its aspects.​

.
* source


.

So you want a case that creation did not gradually evolve(that evolution happened) but without referencing evolution. LOL
Brilliant!

Next will you want them to explain how Creation could happen without allowed reference to anything created?

 

[Polymath257]

"If you cannot test your ideas through observation, then you are not doing science. If your results are not repeatable, then you are not doing science." That is 2 subjective rules.

Nope. it is simply part of the *definition* of what it means to be a science. If you can't do those, then you aren't doing science. You may be investigating things in a somewhat orderly way, but *by definition* you aren't doing science.

You may be doing philosophy or maybe even the very early pre-scientific parts that may develop into a science. But if you can't do those, you are not doing science.

And this *is* important. This is the single crucial advance that was made in the 16th and 17th centuries: that to learn about the universe, we should *test* our ideas against observations *of* the universe. It seems obvious and trivial, but that is what produced the scientific revolution. And it is what defines science from non-science.

If you have not had a major idea disproved by observations in the last century, then you simply have not been doing science (since our ideas are likely to be wrong and testing reveals that wrongness).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nope. it is simply part of the *definition* of what it means to be a science. ...

No, it is not the definition. It is one definition. How is that? Well, you can observe other definitions.
So based on you one definition that it is the definition, you declare subjectively declare the other definitions "wrong" as not the correct and proper definition.
You are subjective and you don't realize it.
There are no one correct and proper definition of science. There are several, which overlap to some degree, yet are different in other degrees.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Valid is a process in your brain.

No. How valid an idea is depends on the idea and its merrits.

When you compare 2 or more ideas, you compare them based on a standard.

Like "evidence" and "explanatory power" - if the goal of the comparasion is to see which idea is the most accurate.

So here is the question: Are all standards for comparing based on quantitative measurements?

When it comes to ideas about how objective reality works, empirical evidence seems the only standard that applies for the conclusion to be trustworthy.

That can be tested, ask enough humans. They will answer differently: Don't know, don't understand, don't care, yes or no! There might be other answers but you get the idea.

I get the idea. You think opinions are more relevant then facts and evidence.
If not, then you are again being very confusing. Perhaps you are again using words in ways that nobody else uses them.

Now you are a scientist

No, I'm not. I'm a software engineer and a drummer.

, but you are not a scientist within natural or hard science. You are at the "opposite" end of science. It is as soft as it gets, because now it is subjective without any end in sight.

No clue what you are talking about.

So back to "Don't know, don't understand, don't care, yes or no!" If you know explain all the answer expect the one you consider valid, away as incorrect, you haven't explained, how the other answers work in themselves.

I can't make heads or tails of that sentence.

You haven't explained your set of observations with science. You have explained a part of the observations away as irrelevant.

No clue what you are talking about.

So now explain how invalid works in humans. What is it, that goes on when different humans gives different answers?

I was talking about the validity of ideas about how things in reality (the external world) work.
I have no idea what you are talking about.

And here it is for this thread:
What goes on when different humans gives different answer to metaphysics and ontology?

It's like fighting a war using action figures.

So far you have not shown any ability to explain that as with science

There's nothing there to explain.

You have only shown that you consider your own standard valid and therefore all others standard invalid. But you haven't explained how that works?

I did. But you're gish gallopping into irrelevancy all over it.

I asked you specifically the following questions, after you continued to argue over it:
1. do you agree that "true"/"accurate" means those things that are proper reflections of reality?
2. if yes, how do you test how "true" or "accurate" a statement about reality is, if not by testing it against reality, which would yield evidence pro or con the idea?
3. if no, then I have no clue what you mean when you use the words "true" or "accurat" and in that case, I'm going to ask you to define what you mean by those words when you use them. What is "true", if not those things that correspond to reality?

Explain how invalid works as invalid and not that it is invalid based on your standard.

Que?

PS I am from the soft end and you are from the hard end of science. Don't assume that the actual methods are the same for subjective(soft) and objective(hard). If you do that, you can't explain subjective as subjective.

Please stop with all this mumbo jumbo.
We are discussing objective claims about the external world

Third party subjective claims (like "I like the peppers more then coldplay") are of no interest to me.