Evidence, specifically scientific evidence.

[PureX]

In my mind, the question is which is preferable: a comforting myth or an uncomfortable truth?

What you aren't understanding here is that because we are human, it's ALL MYTH. What you and I call and believe to be "reality" is an intellectual construct within our own minds; created there by our very limited and unique experience of existence, through our very limited and individual intellectual capability. The "truth" is not within our reach. It is a mythical "Holy Grail" that we don't even know actually exists. All we have is a presumption of truth based on very incomplete information, limited experience, and a minimal capacity for understanding. Once we grasp and accept this fundamental aspect of the human condition, we will see that it is a delusion for us to presume that we can ever "know the truth" of things. And that the best we can do, instead, is try and understand how things function well enough to survive and thrive, and beyond that, that it's OK for us to speculate about and act on the various theories that we develop about our existential value and purpose as human beings.

 

[PureX]

And I pointed out the error in that. You assume just because there are billions of religious people that that religion helped them. That assumption needs a lot more evidence than just the numbers of believers.
Another unsubstantiated claim. And even if they did not think that it did not do them harm that does not meant that is the case.

That does not appear to be true at all when one compares the bad behavior of the religious to the bad behavior of those without religion. If anything it appears to be the other way around. Once again at best religion has only a negative effect there at best.

That is because there was no "logic" behind it. All you have are a combination of false and unsupported claims. No bias on my part, you appear to be projecting again. Asking for evidence is not "bias". Claiming something without evidence is bias.

*sigh* ... It's just like explaining evolution to a creationist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

*sigh* ... It's just like explaining evolution to a creationist.

That is only because you are playing the role of creationist here. That you cannot properly support your claims speaks volumes.

"Everybody does it" has never been a valid reason. At one point in time everybody that could afford it saw a barber to be bled when they were ill. That does not mean that that action helped them or was even benign. Now we know that bleeding a patient is almost never a good idea. Your argument was the same one used for bleeding patients. I was not impressed.

 

[Polymath257]

What you aren't understanding here is that because we are human, it's ALL MYTH. What you and I call and believe to be "reality" is an intellectual construct within our own minds; created there by our very limited and unique experience of existence, through our very limited and individual intellectual capability. The "truth" is not within our reach. It is a mythical "Holy Grail" that we don't even know actually exists. All we have is a presumption of truth based on very incomplete information, limited experience, and a minimal capacity for understanding. Once we grasp and accept this fundamental aspect of the human condition, we will see that it is a delusion for us to presume that we can ever "know the truth" of things. And that the best we can do, instead, is try and understand how things function well enough to survive and thrive, and beyond that, that it's OK for us to speculate about and act on the various theories that we develop about our existential value and purpose as human beings.

OK, I disagree. For example, it is a truth that there is a chair in my room. Yes, we have imperfect knowledge, but that is not the same as no knowledge at all. We have the ability to reason and gain more knowledge. We have the ability to test to see if our ideas work or not and to discard those that do not. We don't have to know everything in order to know something. And those precious few things we do know are an aspect of truth.

So, yes, I do believe that aspects of the truth *are* in our reach. The fact that we have made as much progress over the last 400 years shows that the methods of science are very, very good at finding ideas that correspond to reality, at least in some approximation. We can also attempt to make our approximations better over time. And that is what the pursuit of truth is all about.

For me, what you propose is self-defeating. It counsels that the search for truth is irrelevant, when, for me, it is one of the most relevant pursuits.

 

[whirlingmerc]

This thread is on the concept of scientific evidence. A concept that creationists seem to avoid understanding. Wikipedia has an excellent article on the topic, but of course other sources are welcome. This article:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Starts with this clear definition:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

I will gladly discuss this or other well supported definitions of scientific evidence along with examples of evidence and how the details of the definition apply.

:"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 naughts after is... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." Sir Fred Hoyle

 

[Subduction Zone]

:"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 naughts after is... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." Sir Fred Hoyle

So what? He had no clue. He was not a biologist, he was a physicist.

This is an example of an appeal to authority fallacy.

Edit: This demonstrates a lack of understanding of the concept of evidence. Stick around, you might learn something.

 

[ecco]

ecco previously:

Which is more powerful?

• Go out and fight to defend your King
• Go out and fight to save your Country
• Go out and fight in the name of your God

If one is looking for a fight, any (and all) of these will do as an excuse. If one is looking to avoid a fight, it will be the king that forces them to do it.

I wan't talking about excuses. If I were talking about excuses I would have included things like alcohol.

Care to try again?
Which is more powerful?

• Go out and fight to defend your King
• Go out and fight to save your Country
• Go out and fight in the name of your God

Remember, Hitler used the teachings of Luther to promote anti-Semitism.
Remember, it was his officers whose belt buckles were emblazoned "Gott Mitt Uns".

 

[PureX]

OK, I disagree. For example, it is a truth that there is a chair in my room.

No, it is a relative fact that there is a chair in your room. A fact, the accuracy of which could change at any time, for any number of reasons. And a fact that may not even be true at the moment, when ascertained from a perspective beyond your/my current understanding.

Yes, we have imperfect knowledge, but that is not the same as no knowledge at all.

I wasn't talking about knowledge, I was talking about truth. We cannot know the truth because we cannot know the truth, in part. And that's all we get to know; are relative parts of the whole (relative facts). We can't know how what we don't know would change what we think is true. So we can't know that what we think is true, is true. It's not logically possible.

We have the ability to reason and gain more knowledge. We have the ability to test to see if our ideas work or not and to discard those that do not. We don't have to know everything in order to know something. And those precious few things we do know are an aspect of truth.

What works and what doesn't does not reveal to us what is true, and what isn't.

So, yes, I do believe that aspects of the truth *are* in our reach.

The truth does not come in "aspects". It is the whole of 'what is'. Relative facts do not equate to truth because they are only true relative to each other.

The fact that we have made as much progress over the last 400 years shows that the methods of science are very, very good at finding ideas that correspond to reality, at least in some approximation. We can also attempt to make our approximations better over time. And that is what the pursuit of truth is all about.

Figuring out how the physical world functions so that we can manipulate it to our own advantage does not mean we can know, or do know the truth. Functionality is not truth.

For me, what you propose is self-defeating. It counsels that the search for truth is irrelevant, when, for me, it is one of the most relevant pursuits.

It is a fiction that we humans search for truth. Mostly what we search for is functional advantage. When we find it we pretend we have discovered some truth, until we discover a new and greater advantage, and that becomes our new truth.

Yes, we have imperfect knowledge, but that is not the same as no knowledge at all.

This discussion isn't about acquiring knowledge, it's about knowing the truth.

We have the ability to reason and gain more knowledge. We have the ability to test to see if our ideas work or not and to discard those that do not.

Functional understanding is just one kind of knowledge.

For me, what you propose is self-defeating. It counsels that the search for truth is irrelevant, when, for me, it is one of the most relevant pursuits.

You confuse and conflate functional knowledge with truth, as do most humans.

 

[ecco]

:"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 naughts after is... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." Sir Fred Hoyle

Hoyle really isn't your best choice when trying to make a scientific argument about evolution.

But, since YOU quoted him, may I assume YOU know how he arrived at that figure? Perhaps you would like to share that information with us.

 

[ecco]

... Stick around, you might learn something.

I'll take that bet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll take that bet.

I am ever the optimist.

 

[Polymath257]

:"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 naughts after is... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." Sir Fred Hoyle

Sorry, but the defects in Hoyle's calculation have been demonstrated many times.

I'll give the basic errors:
1. He assumes only one configuration for each protein is possible.
2. He assumes that proteins have to come into existence as a one-shot event rather than piece-by-piece.
3. He assumes that each location in the protein sequence is independent of every other.
4. He fails to consider the order in which proteins form when considering calculations of the possibility of a cell.
5. Again, he assumes each protein in a cell is independent of every other protein.

Each and every one of these hidden assumptions of known to be wrong. And the *way* that they are wrong no only negates the whole calculation, but makes an *honest* calculation almost impossibly difficult (very far from simply multiplying numbers together to make something huge).

For example, we *know* that mutation and natural selection are operative in the development of life. But we also know that systems with these properties *immensely* increase the probabilities of finding optimal solutions to problems. We also know that genes often 'split', so related proteins can evolve independently after the split. Hoyle fails to consider any mechanisms along these, thereby arriving at unrealistically large numbers when families of proteins are considered.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, but the defects in Hoyle's calculation have been demonstrated many times.

I'll give the basic errors:
1. He assumes only one configuration for each protein is possible.
2. He assumes that proteins have to come into existence as a one-shot event rather than piece-by-piece.
3. He assumes that each location in the protein sequence is independent of every other.
4. He fails to consider the order in which proteins form when considering calculations of the possibility of a cell.
5. Again, he assumes each protein in a cell is independent of every other protein.

Each and every one of these hidden assumptions of known to be wrong. And the *way* that they are wrong no only negates the whole calculation, but makes an *honest* calculation almost impossibly difficult (very far from simply multiplying numbers together to make something huge).

For example, we *know* that mutation and natural selection are operative in the development of life. But we also know that systems with these properties *immensely* increase the probabilities of finding optimal solutions to problems. We also know that genes often 'split', so related proteins can evolve independently after the split. Hoyle fails to consider any mechanisms along these, thereby arriving at unrealistically large numbers when families of proteins are considered.

I have yet to see a creationist odds argument that does not make those sorts of errors. With evolution they tend to ignore that populations evolve and not individuals. Multiple positive mutations can build up in a population and then when there is a change in environment they are already there ready to be expressed.

 

[Polymath257]

No, it is a relative fact that there is a chair in your room. A fact, the accuracy of which could change at any time, for any number of reasons. And a fact that may not even be true at the moment, when ascertained from a perspective beyond your/my current understanding.

OK, I simply disagree. We *can* have knowledge of the truth in this matter.

I wasn't talking about knowledge, I was talking about truth. We cannot know the truth because we cannot know the truth, in part. And that's all we get to know; are relative parts of the whole (relative facts). We can't know how what we don't know would change what we think is true. So we can't know that what we think is true, is true. It's not logically possible.

Irrelevant. We still have knowledge and that knowledge is of *a* truth. We don't have to know everything in order to know anything.

What works and what doesn't does not reveal to us what is true, and what isn't. The truth does not come in "aspects". It is the whole of 'what is'. Relative facts do not equate to truth because they are only true relative to each other.

Again, I disagree. Truth is *defined* to be that which works whether or not you believe in it.

Figuring out how the physical world functions so that we can manipulate it to our own advantage does not mean we can know, or do know the truth. Functionality is not truth.

And once again, I disagree. We know that things function in certain ways. That is a truth about how things function.

It is a fiction that we humans search for truth. Mostly what we search for is functional advantage. When we find it we pretend we have discovered some truth, until we discover a new and greater advantage, and that becomes our new truth.

Not all truth leads to 'advantages', except possibly for understanding. But the advantage of understanding is, yes, the whole point of the search for truth.

This discussion isn't about acquiring knowledge, it's about knowing the truth.
Functional understanding is just one kind of knowledge.
You confuse and conflate functional knowledge with truth, as do most humans.

I think of functional knowledge as one aspect of truth. And yes, truth does, in fact, have aspects. We can know pieces and that knowledge is of parts of the truth.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Sorry, but the defects in Hoyle's calculation have been demonstrated many times.

I'll give the basic errors:
1. He assumes only one configuration for each protein is possible.
2. He assumes that proteins have to come into existence as a one-shot event rather than piece-by-piece.
3. He assumes that each location in the protein sequence is independent of every other.
4. He fails to consider the order in which proteins form when considering calculations of the possibility of a cell.
5. Again, he assumes each protein in a cell is independent of every other protein.

Each and every one of these hidden assumptions of known to be wrong. And the *way* that they are wrong no only negates the whole calculation, but makes an *honest* calculation almost impossibly difficult (very far from simply multiplying numbers together to make something huge).

For example, we *know* that mutation and natural selection are operative in the development of life. But we also know that systems with these properties *immensely* increase the probabilities of finding optimal solutions to problems. We also know that genes often 'split', so related proteins can evolve independently after the split. Hoyle fails to consider any mechanisms along these, thereby arriving at unrealistically large numbers when families of proteins are considered.

Actually the bonds are very weak and proteins break down and so the author of 'Biochemical Predestination" the most pervasively used biochemical evolution book of the 60's rethought his positions and wore Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins the intelligent design book and is holding to that position now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually the bonds are very weak and proteins break down and so the author of 'Biochemical Predestination" the most pervasively used biochemical evolution book of the 60's rethought his positions and wore Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins the intelligent design book and is holding to that position now.

Of Pandas and People is merely creationist nonsense in a cheap lab coat. It is not a science book. In fact it was shown to be a creationist text in the Dover trial.

Do you have a valid source? One that is not a laughing stock in the world of science would do nicely.

 

[Desert Snake]

The "how" does not necessarily need to be answered fully. But what they can't do is to form their belief in a testable form. Also most creationists do not believe that their God can lie. That does limit them in their approach since a lying God could have simply planted false evidence and that would be a purely unscientific hypothesis. What they could try to do is to explain the observable evidence assuming using a model where God created life. And they cannot even do that. As a result they have to deny the existence of evidence for evolution since they know that they have no explanation. They not only need a God that is continually creating new life forms. They need an incompetent God whose life always looks as if it had the drawbacks that come with an evolved life from.

There is no evidence for non creationism.

 

[exchemist]

OK, I simply disagree. We *can* have knowledge of the truth in this matter.



Irrelevant. We still have knowledge and that knowledge is of *a* truth. We don't have to know everything in order to know anything.


Again, I disagree. Truth is *defined* to be that which works whether or not you believe in it.


And once again, I disagree. We know that things function in certain ways. That is a truth about how things function.


Not all truth leads to 'advantages', except possibly for understanding. But the advantage of understanding is, yes, the whole point of the search for truth.


I think of functional knowledge as one aspect of truth. And yes, truth does, in fact, have aspects. We can know pieces and that knowledge is of parts of the truth.

This is interesting. Committed, as I am, to the view of the theories of science as models of "reality", I instinctively shy away from "truth" claims for scientific theories. I do agree that reproducible observations (such as the observation of your chair) can be taken to be a sort of "truth", or at any rate "facts", insofar as anything at all in human experience can be a fact. (Arguably it is impossible in a strict sense to eliminate all subjectivity, though we manfully try our best.).

"Truth" is not a word that seems to feature much in science, in my experience. There seems to be a lot more about evidence "in support" of, or "consistent with", a model. Perhaps this is just modesty on the part of researchers, or prudent cover against attack during the challenges of peer review, etc., but the upshot, it seems to me, is there is a culture in science of avoiding the T word. I think myself that is healthy.

Maybe they have in mind Bacon:" "What is truth?", said jesting Pilate - and would not stay for an answer." (Though in fact that essay was contrasting truth with falsehood, rather than with the argument here, that human perceptions may be too imperfect to reveal truth clearly.)

PureX, however, seems to go further and be close to denying that the "reality" I refer to above (which science is trying to model) can be said to exist in an objective sense. I think that is a pretty extreme view, and one that is probably not helpful if ordinary words are to have a useful meaning.

 

[PureX]

PureX, however, seems to go further and be close to denying that the "reality" I refer to above (which science is trying to model) can be said to exist in an objective sense. I think that is a pretty extreme view, and one that is probably not helpful if ordinary words are to have a useful meaning.

Reality exists both objectively and subjectively. Reality is, after all, 'what is'. What we think of as "reality", however, is an intellectual construct based on our subjective experience, knowledge, and reasoning; speculating about what exists beyond these. And it does not exist apart from our own minds. For this reason, what we call "objective reality" is a logically incoherent state, as by it's own definition, it cannot be accessed by (as it is set apart from) the very mind that conjured the idea up.

 

[Polymath257]

Actually the bonds are very weak and proteins break down and so the author of 'Biochemical Predestination" the most pervasively used biochemical evolution book of the 60's rethought his positions and wore Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins the intelligent design book and is holding to that position now.

1. Irrelevant to Hoyle's calculation.
2. The decline of one scientist does not make a truth.