An Open Challenge To Creationists

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

You keep yapping, and you keep missing the point.


What does "true" and "accurate" mean, if not those things that are reflective of reality?
How do you find out if a statement is reflective of reality (and thus "true" / "accurate"), if not by testing it against reality, which would yield evidence in support of, or in contradiction with, the statement in question?

I don't see any other way, aside from independently verifiable evidence, to check if a statement about reality is "true" or "accurate".

Your philosophical jargon and gibber gabber isn't adressing that point.

You argued against the use of evidence as a reliable way to differentiate true statements from false statements. So what is your alternative method that apparantly yields better results?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

Merrits are subjective

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

Accurate is different between the objective, inter-subjective and individually subjective.

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

All of the world is not objective.

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.

I think that the objective is relevant if it is objective. I don't think that the objective is relevant if what is going on is subjective

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

So in part STEM

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 I am talking about that all ideas about what the external word is, are internal in part.

[/QUOTE]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?[/QUOTE]

No, there are other versions of true and all of the world is not external.

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?

I use coherence, not correspondence for truth.

[/QUOTE]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?[/QUOTE]

Coherence as broadly as an internal model of how to fit personal experiences together and make sense of that.
I do that use words like "external world" and I consider you a part of the external world, but my reasons are internal.
I am an epistemological solipsist and that is not the same as an ontological solipsist.

We are discussing objective claims about the external world

No, we are not. We are discussing different models of how to understand the internal and external and combine those 2.
You have one internal model of truth and I have another.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You keep yapping, and you keep missing the point.


What does "true" and "accurate" mean, if not those things that are reflective of reality?
...

Answered above.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I use another standard that your standard of "accurately reflects reality".

That's not a standard.
That's just what "true" means: to accurately reflect 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.

You are aware that how reality is experienced by humans, doesn't actually paint an accurate picture of reality?

My "experience" of reality tells me that the earth is stationary. I don't feel the earth moving.
My "experience" of reality does not include magnetic fields or radiation.
My "experience" of reality tells me that time is constant instead of relative.
My "experience" of reality tells me that the sun orbits the earth and not the other way round.

And let's not even get into how a schizofrenic (to name an extreme example) "experiences" reality.

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.

I don't assume that at all.
However, there IS a standard that demonstrably works best to unravel reality and to evaluate the truth value of claims. And that standard is empirical evidence. Science.

Your "standard" leads you to the conclusion of geocentrism.
My "standard" doesn't care about how you "experience" things. Instead, it cares about how things actually are.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's not a standard.
That's just what "true" means: to accurately reflect reality.



You are aware that how reality is experienced by humans, doesn't actually paint an accurate picture of reality?

My "experience" of reality tells me that the earth is stationary. I don't feel the earth moving.
My "experience" of reality does not include magnetic fields or radiation.
My "experience" of reality tells me that time is constant instead of relative.
My "experience" of reality tells me that the sun orbits the earth and not the other way round.

And let's not even get into how a schizofrenic (to name an extreme example) "experiences" reality.



I don't assume that at all.
However, there IS a standard that demonstrably works best to unravel reality and to evaluate the truth value of claims. And that standard is empirical evidence. Science.

Your "standard" leads you to the conclusion of geocentrism.
My "standard" doesn't care about how you "experience" things. Instead, it cares about how things actually are.

Welcome to the world of One Truth. I am not a part of that, because I am not you and you are not me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Nonsense. The scientific method is pretty standardised. And it's come to this state based on what works not on what feels good.

This is why it doesn't matter in science if you are a hindu, a muslim, an atheist or a jew. Your paper will be evaluated on objective criteria. Not on cultural preferences.

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.

BS.

A Dane submitting a paper has his paper evaluated by the same criteria as a paper submitted by any other nationality.

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.

There's nothing subjective about that.
That empirical evidence is the standard that yields the best result concerning claims about reality, is a demonstrable fact.

That an idea is not science if it can't be tested through observation, is also a fact.

Science requires independent verifiability / testability for ideas. It's just how it works.
So untestable ideas, are unscientific by definition.

Not opinion. Not subjective. Just stone cold fact.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, it is not the definition.

Except that it is.

It is one definition.

No. There are no 20 definitions of what science is about.

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's nothing subjective about facts.
It is a fact that science requires testability.
Untestable ideas are not scientific by definition.

Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

There are no one correct and proper definition of science. There are several, which overlap to some degree, yet are different in other degrees.

Not when it comes to the subject at hand.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Merrits are subjective

No, they are not.

Take Einstein's relativity.
If you build GPS satellites only thinking about Newtonian physics, GPS is off by several miles.
If you instead calibrate the internal clocks of those satelites to account for the relativistic effects, then GPS works.

That's merrit. Stone cold hard objective merrit.

All of the world is not objective.

The external world is objective. Things are as they are and not as they are not.
The workings of external world doesn't depend on our opinions.

And I am talking about that all ideas about what the external word is, are internal in part.

Which is exactly why you need to test them against reality if you wish to find out if they are "true".

No, there are other versions of true and all of the world is not external.

Then define what you mean exactly when you say "claim X is true".

I use coherence, not correspondence for truth.

I don't know what that means.
Let's use an example... Here are two statements:
1. undetectabe unicorns are keeping me from floating into space
2. object with mass curve space-time and thereby exert a force of attraction to other objects with mass captured in that same space-time curving.

Now, use "coherence" to find out which of these statements is correct, if any.

Coherence as broadly as an internal model of how to fit personal experiences together and make sense of that.
I do that use words like "external world" and I consider you a part of the external world, but my reasons are internal.
I am an epistemological solipsist and that is not the same as an ontological solipsist.

Will you please stop with the intellectually-sounding buzzwords and just give a clear answer to questions in plain english? You're not impressing anybody here and instead you are only making it even more confusing then it already is. Especially given your track record of using words in different ways then other people tend to use them.

So please try again.

No, we are not

Yes, we are. Read the OP.

We are discussing different models of how to understand the internal and external and combine those 2.
You have one internal model of truth and I have another.

No. The thread is about creationism as an alternative to evolutionary biology, and to an extend perhaps natural abiogenesis.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Welcome to the world of One Truth. I am not a part of that, because I am not you and you are not me.

Another irrelevant comment wich doesn't address any point in the post you are replying to, at all.

Please try again and this time actually address the points being made. In plain and unambigous english, preferably.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
That empirical evidence is the standard that yields the best result concerning claims about reality, is a demonstrable fact.
...

Not the subjective part of the world.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
There's nothing subjective about facts.
...

Expect that all of the world are not made up of objective empirical evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
I don't know what that means.

And yet you know that it can't work.

Let's use an example... Here are two statements:
1. undetectabe unicorns are keeping me from floating into space
2. object with mass curve space-time and thereby exert a force of attraction to other objects with mass captured in that same space-time curving.

Now, use "coherence" to find out which of these statements is correct, if any.

1. Undetectable means I can't experience that
2. I accept that as natural science about the objective part of the world, but I trained in that, so I don't claim anything about that.

...[/QUOTE]

 

[Polymath257]

Expect that all of the world are not made up of objective empirical evidence.

Nope. Just the scientific part. The other parts are just not scientific.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Please try again and this time actually address the points being made. In plain and unambigous english, preferably.

The world consists of 5 part as per truth.

1. Objective as objective empirical evidence, correspondence.
2. Objective as logic/math, coherence.
3. Inter-subjective as cultural, moral and politics.
4. Subjective as psychology, beliefs, world-view.
5. Metaphysical as the world in itself independent of the mind and assumptions about how 1-4 interact.

Do you disagree?

Science and creationism rely on different ways to tackle 5.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nope. Just the scientific part. The other parts are just not scientific.

Yet, you know how to do the other parts otherwise you wouldn't be where you are now as a human. So you know more than just science.

 

[Polymath257]

Yet, you know how to do the other parts otherwise you wouldn't be where you are now as a human. So you know more than just science.

Which is irrelevant to the question of what constitutes a science.

Once again, aesthetics is not a science. Nor is morality. That doesn't mean they are unimportant. it just means they aren't science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which is irrelevant to the question of what constitutes a science.

Once again, aesthetics is not a science. Nor is morality. That doesn't mean they are unimportant. it just means they aren't science.

Yet there are different methodologies in morality and psychology and they achieve different results, which are evaluated based on different subjective standards of useful and good.
You use such a subjective standard of useful and good. You can then learn to understand other subjective standards and learn to compare then using suspended judgement.
There is a methodology to how subjectively understand another human's subjectivity and you can learn to know, understand and do that.

To you that is not science and that is subjective. To others that is human science.

You don't own the word "science" and neither do I. But you believe you own the word! You don't.
It is different cultural conventions and they don't really exist, right?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which is irrelevant to the question of what constitutes a science.

Once again, aesthetics is not a science. Nor is morality. That doesn't mean they are unimportant. it just means they aren't science.

Take 2:
Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]

What science is, is not a fact. It is a socially embedded activity.

 

[Skwim]

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?

Not "creation," but "creationism." C-R-E-A-T-I-O-N-I-S-M. Sheesh! ...S...... From the OP:

"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."
​

Reading comprehension, Shaul. Reading comprehension. Here, maybe this will help. . . .

cre·a·tion
/krēˈāSH(ə)n/

Learn to pronounce

noun
noun: creation; noun: Creation; noun: the Creation.
the action or process of bringing something into existence.
​

VS

cre·a·tion·ism
/krēˈāSHəˌnizəm/

Learn to pronounce

noun
noun: creationism
the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.


.​

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not "creation," but "creationism." C-R-E-A-T-I-O-N-I-S-M. Sheesh! ...S...... From the OP:

"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."
​

Reading comprehension, Shaul. Reading comprehension. Here, maybe this will help. . . .

cre·a·tion
/krēˈāSH(ə)n/

Learn to pronounce

noun
noun: creation; noun: Creation; noun: the Creation.
the action or process of bringing something into existence.
​

VS

cre·a·tion·ism
/krēˈāSHəˌnizəm/

Learn to pronounce

noun
noun: creationism
the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.


.​

Again your "best" is free-floating as it stands and thus subjective.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
So unless you can show a scientific standard as applied to the supernatural, for which science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations, then what is your standard for "best"?