Creationism Vs. Evolution: The Debate Is Live Tonight online at 7pm- http://www.npr.org

[s0crates]

I think that depends on whether you are satisfied by verification of your senses through cross-checking them for consistency.

I think you kind of must be satisfied with that for not having other choices. I read a good analogy - think of it as a web of knowledge rather than a building.

So you say you believe according to coherence.

But isn't that a metaphysical principle? Doesn't that imply faith that the universe is a coherent system?

In other words, don't you thereby assume that the universe is not irrational?

[alexey]

So you say you believe according to coherence.

I would be more comfortable with this: I apportion my confidence according to coherence.

But isn't that a metaphysical principle? Doesn't that imply faith that the universe is a coherent system?

In other words, don't you thereby assume that the universe is not irrational?

I treat it as a logical principle, not a metaphysical principle.

I accept it is a premise that allows me to make sense of the world.

I do not assume that this premise is actually true. I accept it because I see no way to make sense of the world without it.

[PeterMP]

I would be more comfortable with this: I apportion my confidence according to coherence.

I treat it as a logical principle, not a metaphysical principle.

I accept it is a premise that allows me to make sense of the world.

I do not assume that this premise is actually true. I accept it because I see no way to make sense of the world without it.

 

Given this and what you've stated above, is there anything that would positively assert that there is an extremely low probability of happening?

 

Would you assert that there is an extremely low probability that a flipped coin will land and stay on its edge and not be tails or heads?

[alexey]

Given this and what you've stated above, is there anything that would positively assert that there is an extremely low probability of happening?

 

Would you assert that there is an extremely low probability that a flipped coin will land and stay on its edge and not be tails or heads?

I do not see a reason to make such an assertion.

 

If somebody else were to make it, I would become very curious about their motives and probably would not dispute.  I would also refuse to make any bets, etc.

[s0crates]

I would be more comfortable with this: I apportion my confidence according to coherence.

I treat it as a logical principle, not a metaphysical principle.

I accept it is a premise that allows me to make sense of the world.

I do not assume that this premise is actually true. I accept it because I see no way to make sense of the world without it.

I won't quibble over the semantics with you. The subtle difference between "belief" and "confidence," just as that between "metaphysical principle" and "logical principle," is relatively unimportant to me here.

You've essentially conceded the point I'm trying to make already. My point is exactly as you say: you have to "accept" certain "principle" in order "to make sense of the world." That is precisely what I mean when I say science begins with faith that the universe is rational. In order to get started on the path to knowledge, you have to believe the world is knowable.

As a historical matter, science as we know it was able to develop because people already believed the world is law-like and rational. You might even say, as Alfred North Whitehead does, modern empirical science is "an unconscious derivative of medieval theology."

Now even though I claim "induction presupposes metaphysics," I do not mean to belittle science, I only want to get clear about our abstract concepts and assumptions. None of what I've said here changes the fact that Ken Hamm is either a liar or an idiot.

[Larry]

You've essentially conceded the point I'm trying to make already. My point is exactly as you say: you have to "accept" certain "principle" in order "to make sense of the world." That is precisely what I mean when I say science begins with faith that the universe is rational. In order to get started on the path to knowledge, you have to believe the world is knowable.

Observing that the rules you have to accept, to employ science, have been accepted because they've been demonstrated to work. Every single time. For quite a long time.

Whereas faith, as I believe Twain commented, is "believing something you know ain't true".

I'm not sure if it's faith, if you've tested it thousands of times.

Is it faith, to assert that if I let go of this rock, it will fall down?

[alexey]

I won't quibble over the semantics with you. The subtle difference between "belief" and "confidence," just as that between "metaphysical principle" and "logical principle," is relatively unimportant to me here.

You've essentially conceded the point I'm trying to make already. My point is exactly as you say: you have to "accept" certain "principle" in order "to make sense of the world." That is precisely what I mean when I say science begins with faith that the universe is rational. In order to get started on the path to knowledge, you have to believe the world is knowable.

I am telling you about principles that I use to organize sensory information, and you are claiming that obligates me to: 1) make assumptions about the universe and 2) have faith in those assumptions.

Please explain how you get those conclusions.

 

As a historical matter, science as we know it was able to develop because people already believed the world is law-like and rational. You might even say, as Alfred North Whitehead does, modern empirical science is "an unconscious derivative of medieval theology."

I agree that people who use science can believe that there world is rational.

However, you have not made an argument why they must believe it.

[PeterMP]

I do not see a reason to make such an assertion.

 

If somebody else were to make it, I would become very curious about their motives and probably would not dispute.  I would also refuse to make any bets, etc.

 

Have you been involved in many coin flips in your life?

 

Would it be safe to conclude that you have called:

 

(heads+tails) >>>> the edge

[alexey]

Have you been involved in many coin flips in your life?

 

Would it be safe to conclude that you have called:

 

(heads+tails) >>>> the edge

That is correct, I never called the edge. I never even had to seriously consider the possibility.

[PeterMP]

That is correct, I never called the edge. I never even had to seriously consider the possibility.

 

So it would be safe to say that you behave as if the probability is extremely low.

[alexey]

So it would be safe to say that you behave as if the probability is extremely low.

My behavior does not have any relationship with probabilities of coins landing on their edge.

[s0crates]

Observing that the rules you have to accept, to employ science, have been accepted because they've been demonstrated to work. Every single time. For quite a long time.

Whereas faith, as I believe Twain commented, is "believing something you know ain't true".

I'm not sure if it's faith, if you've tested it thousands of times.

Is it faith, to assert that if I let go of this rock, it will fall down?

First of all, don't get too hung up on the word "faith." I'll happily defer to Twain's definition of "faith" here, abandoning my own definition which is "believing without evidence." It's more important to me that my larger point be understood.

The idea is that you have to assume certain things about the nature of the world (e.g. the universe is law-like in its operations) to do science, and that these assumptions are not the sort of thing that can be demonstrated beyond doubt.

You ask the perfect question about the rock falling when I drop it. When Hume posed the problem of induction he used a similar example, that of the sun rising tomorrow. Let's look at these two examples.

How do I know the sun will rise tomorrow? How do I know a rock will fall when I drop it?

These are generalizations from repeated observations, not rational principles. As you say, they've happened that way thousands of times before, without fail even, but I don't think you would commit to the principle that rocks falling is a matter of logical necessity, for you are well aware that rocks don't fall in space. Likewise, the sun will one day consume the earth as it runs out of fuel, so I doubt you would commit to the principle that the sun rises as a matter of logical necessity.

So suppose you say, as you did, that you know rocks will fall and the sun will rise because they always have in the past. I would ask how do you know the future will resemble the past?

It seems the answer must be that you know the future will resemble the past because it always has in the past, but that just begs the question, it does not answer it.

So there is your assumption which cannot be proven beyond doubt, that the future will resemble the past, or in other words, that the universe is consistent, even law-like, in its operations. That there is a rational principle, not an observable empirical fact. You must assume it, or otherwise become an absolute skeptic, which people may be in principle, but not in practice. So, at least in practice, you have to trust that the world makes sense, call it what you like if you won't call it "faith."

Please note that I do accept the principle that the universe is the sort of thing we can know, I just can't prove it beyond doubt.

[PeterMP]

My behavior does not have any relationship with probabilities of coins landing on their edge.

 

I'd assert in the context of calling a coin flip it does.  I suspect if I picked 100 random people on the street and asked them how many times they've picked edge during a coin flip, they would tell me none.  I suspect if I asked them why, the vast majority of them would tell me it can't happen or it is very very unlikely to happen.

 

In this case, your behavior is just like those people.

 

If we consider a few possibilities:

1.  the probability is evaluted and evaluated to not be extremely low

2.  the probability is evaluted and evaluted to be so low that it is essentially negligible

3.  the probability is not evaluted.

 

That in every scenario that I could describe, there would be no difference between #2 and #3 in terms of your actual behavior.

 

And I'll point out that while you don't evaluate it, other people that know a lot about probability do attempt to evaluate it:

 

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993PhRvE..48.2547M

 

Potentially, your position of not evaluating probabilities is in fact a position of ignorance?

[PeterMP]

I'd like to point out that I think we are seening a rather extreme defintion used through out this thread for faith.  It isn't difficult to find a definitions of faith that aren't absolute in terms of belief or lack of evidence.

 

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

 

For example from Merriam-Webster:

 

"something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially :  a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>"

"firm belief in something for which there is no proof"

 

and what comes up when I just put faith in google:

 

"strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

"complete trust or confidence in someone or something."

 

I didn't take every definition of faith, but none suggest a belief without evidence (no proof does not mean no evidence), and some of these don't suggest an absolute belief.

 

Most religious people that I know (including some Buddist) have reasons for their beliefs.  Others might not consider them good reasons/evidence, but that is not a complete lack of evidence.

 

And I know many people, including myself, that would say they have faith, but would not claim the have ZERO doubts.

 

I prefer to think of faith as a belief where the strength of belief is not supported by a "fair" juding of the evidence, and I think that well matches some of the defintions I've quoted above.

 

And generally much better with the dictionary defintions than an absolute belief with zero evidence.

[Chachie]

Isn't there room for both in the scope of the universe and maybe even Earth? Is it so off the table that both evolution and creation can exist?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Slooowly.. backing...awaaay...)

[s0crates]

I am telling you about principles that I use to organize sensory information, and you are claiming that obligates me to: 1) make assumptions about the universe and 2) have faith in those assumptions.

Please explain how you get those conclusions.

I agree that people who use science can believe that there world is rational.

However, you have not made an argument why they must believe it.

My point is that in order to know about the universe you must organize your sensory information by principles, it could not be otherwise. The only question that remains is what those principles look like, and my contention is that the basic principle is that the universe is the sort of thing we can understand through observation.

It is possible, I suppose, to be completely skeptical in principle. You could perhaps hold that genuine knowledge is impossible, and induction is mere probability. I might then say you can believe it in principle, but not in practice. Absolute skepticism does no work.

So instead we adopt a principle, at least in practice, that the world is knowable. We simply take certain things as given. Call it whatever you want.

[alexey]

I'd assert in the context of calling a coin flip it does.  I suspect if I picked 100 random people on the street and asked them how many times they've picked edge during a coin flip, they would tell me none.  I suspect if I asked them why, the vast majority of them would tell me it can't happen or it is very very unlikely to happen.

 

In this case, your behavior is just like those people.

 

If we consider a few possibilities:

1.  the probability is evaluted and evaluated to not be extremely low

2.  the probability is evaluted and evaluted to be so low that it is essentially negligible

3.  the probability is not evaluted.

 

That in every scenario that I could describe, there would be no difference between #2 and #3 in terms of your actual behavior.

 

And I'll point out that while you don't evaluate it, other people that know a lot about probability do attempt to evaluate it:

 

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993PhRvE..48.2547M

 

Potentially, your position of not evaluating probabilities is in fact a position of ignorance?

Admission of ignorance in the absence of knowledge is no vice.

[alexey]

My point is that in order to know about the universe you must organize your sensory information by principles, it could not be otherwise.

I do not know whether it could be otherwise. Personally, I try to organize sensory information by principles.

The only question that remains is what those principles look like, and my contention is that the basic principle is that the universe is the sort of thing we can understand through observation.

It is possible, I suppose, to be completely skeptical in principle. You could perhaps hold that genuine knowledge is impossible, and induction is mere probability. I might then say you can believe it in principle, but not in practice. Absolute skepticism does no work.

So instead we adopt a principle, at least in practice, that the world is knowable. We simply take certain things as given. Call it whatever you want.

Can I do the same thing for different reasons?

[s0crates]

I'd like to point out that I think we are seening a rather extreme defintion used through out this thread for faith. It isn't difficult to find a definitions of faith that aren't absolute in terms of belief or lack of evidence.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

For example from Merriam-Webster:

"something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>"

"firm belief in something for which there is no proof"

and what comes up when I just put faith in google:

"strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

"complete trust or confidence in someone or something."

Yeah that is in line with my usage of the word "faith" when I say science begins with faith in experience and faith that we can know the universe. You cannot prove it, you just have confidence in it.

I'm not overly attached to the word though. I'm more interested in understanding the concept.

[alexey]

Yeah that is in line with my usage if the word "faith" when I say science begins with faith in experience and faith that we can know the universe. You cannot prove it, you just have confidence in it.

I'm not overly attached to the word though. I'm more interested in understanding the concept.

Please tell me what you understand by "strong conviction."

[PeterMP]

Admission of ignorance in the absence of knowledge is no vice.

 

But it isn't really an admission of ignorance if the resulting behavior is consistent in one manner is it?

 

Does it make sense in a position of ingorance to always behave as if the event has an extremely low probability?

 

But that's what you do, isn't it?

 

And not just for coin flips, but also for falling thing floors, your car blowing up, for an airplane you are riding on crashing, etc.

 

You say you don't evaluate portions of possibilities of those things happening, but in every case you behave as if you evaluate the probability as being low.

 

That's a bit odd, no?

 

That even seems non-random to me and not all what I'd expect from a position of ignorance.

[s0crates]

I do not know whether it could be otherwise.

Yeah, I didn't word that very well.

Personally, I try to organize sensory information by principles.

At bottom that is all I'm really asking for. Do you agree that principles are essentially rational things? I ask because I'm basically thinking that empiricism presupposes rationalism.

Can I do the same thing for different reasons?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

[alexey]

But it isn't really an admission of ignorance if the resulting behavior is consistent in one manner is it?

 

Does it make sense in a position of ingorance to always behave as if the event has an extremely low probability?

 

But that's what you do, isn't it?

 ...

The difference is between "not a factor in my behavior" and "a factor in my behavior that was evaluated to be at a particular probability."

For me, things need to earn their way into the latter category.

If you put a gun to my head and asked me to pick a number, I would do it.

At bottom that is all I'm really asking for. Do you agree that principles are essentially rational things? I ask because I'm basically thinking that empiricism presupposes rationalism.

I'm not sure I understand your question.

I do not have to go from "this is how i will modulate sensory information" to "this is what I will assume about the universe."

[s0crates]

I do not have to go from "this is how i will modulate sensory information" to "this is what I will assume about the universe."

Ah I see. I think that the statement "this is how I will modulate sensory information" amounts to the same thing as the statement "In order to modulate sensory information, I will assume this about the universe."

Proofs begin with assumptions, whether mathematical, geometric, logical, or empirical. The assumption of empiricism seems to be that experience is the principle epistemic authority, a principle that has worked very well in fact. This is the assumption that begins the scientific proof.

Do you disagree? If so, why?

[alexey]

Ah I see. I think that the statement "this is how I will modulate sensory information" amounts to the same thing as the statement "In order to modulate sensory information, I will assume this about the universe."

Are you suggesting that a conclusion amounts to a thinking process?

Proofs begin with assumptions, whether mathematical, geometric, logical, or empirical. The assumption of empiricism seems to be that experience is the principle epistemic authority, a principle that has worked very well in fact. This is the assumption that begins the scientific proof.

Do you disagree? If so, why?

It seems you are trying to do this:

premise => assumption => assertion => faith

I see meaningful differences between these, and I am not going past "premise."