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

[alexey]

Here is one neuroscientist's view on the "self":

http://www.beinghuman.org/mind/michael-gazzaniga

Like a detective, Gazzaniga's work has been the finding of clues in the wake of trauma, and using them to learn things about the non-traumatized brain, such as how and where the sense of self is generated. On this topic, Gazzaniga says, "There is no ghost in the machine, no secret stuff that is YOU. That YOU that you are so proud of is a story woven together by your interpreter module to account for as much of your behavior as it can incorporate, and it denies or rationalizes the rest."

[PeterMP]

I wrote:

Consider the evolutionary perspective - animals so simple that you would not say they make "assumptions," discovering the world and adapting to it through trial and error.

Please think about this and let me know when the blind adaptation to the world starts requiring assumptions about it.

 

Well that was my other point, but I wanted to make the more basic one (that your argument is circular).

 

You're argument is still circular as you've agreed the whole thing falls apart if we are wrong about evolution for some reason, which include the assumptions that underlie science.

 

The general idea that you're presenting isn't even consistent with evolutionary theory in the context of your larger argument.  You have distinct ideas that you like and don't like.  You have a preference where you want to go and how you want to get there.

 

That isn't blind adaption.

 

What you want isn't evolution as we understand it science.  It isn't a random process without direction.

 

And even more basically your ideas on a population level, which reduce variation in the population, actually run counter to general evolutionary theory in terms of survival of the species.

 

You're using a bad circular argument and misrepresenting what evolution is (in the larger context of your argument) to try and achieve goals that actually are counter to basic evolutionary theory. 

 

In the long run that type of thinking  is going to hurt science and people's understanding of evolution, not help it!

[PeterMP]

alexey-

I've been arguing that induction presupposes metaphysics, and you've countered that metaphysics presupposes induction! I find this intriguing.

If I follow you, you would say Kant's question about how synthetic judgements are possible a priori is fundamentally misguided, it should be: how are analytic judgements possible a posteriori?

 

I will say that I think alexey is generally right in terms of induction being the result of evolution, and while much (none) of it might have been genetic evolution, but cultural evolution that is still evolution.

 

Though he is still presenting a circular argument when he tries to argue that allows one to ignore the assumptions that underlie science.

[PeterMP]

Not to digress, but I think you guys would rather enjoy this article I read (and which your little discussion here reminded me of)

 

All scientists can do is do their work and report it accurately.

 

Now, I have some issues with what some scientists are doing with respect to what I consider to be intellectual honesty with themselves and the public, but I think there has been plenty of push back from the science community, including threads like this.

 

Historically and even today amongsts non-scientists with respect to even science, I've seen a whole lot more issues with intellectual dishonesty.  A whole lot more things like evolution is not consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

Maybe we need to do a better job of teaching what science is and what it isn't, but all science can do is do their work and report their results.

[alexey]

...

You're argument is still circular as you've agreed the whole thing falls apart if we are wrong about evolution for some reason, which include the assumptions that underlie science.

...

Would you please provide an example of this?

[PeterMP]

Would you please provide an example of this?

You've already given one:

 

You are correct. Things break down big time if it turns out that Ken Ham is right about evolution.

After agreeing with the point, are you really going to go back and argue that I was wrong now?

[alexey]

Peter please demonstrate how Ken Ham could be right about evolution.

[PeterMP]

Peter please demonstrate how Ken Ham could be right about evolution.

Why?

Am I wrong?

**EDIT**

I've now explained it to you several times. You can either recognize your are making a circular argument or not.

I'm not actually familiar with Ham's views on evolution to describe them, just that he has very different views from main line science.

If you know his views and want to put forward an argument he MUST be wrong and/or it doesn't affect your argument that's up to you.

[alexey]

Peter, can you please explain what you mean by "assumptions that underlie science" and provide an example how they could be wrong.

[PeterMP]

Peter, can you please explain what you mean by "assumptions that underlie science" and provide an example how they could be wrong.

Go back and read these two threads:

http://es.redskins.com/topic/373255-belief-vs-knowledge/page-5

http://es.redskins.com/topic/373856-slate-no-faith-in-science/page-4

I believe the second one is more relevant, but things go back and forth between them (and here I said earlier in this thread, I thought you got the idea, but I guess I was wrong ).

In there, we repeatedly discussed what the assumptions that underlie science are and I give examples of where they could be wrong.

If you have questions, please respond in the relevant thread by responding to the relevant post and bumping it.

It seems like maybe we need to start from the very beginning (I know sOcrates was also part of at least one of those two threads so that makes me feel better that the failure to explain the issues wasn't just on me.)

If you don't understand these issues well enough based on pages and pages of conversations that you continually require them to be explained to you, then again I'd like to repeat my warning that what you are doing long term is going to do more damage to science and the general public's acceptance of things.

If at this point in time, you don't know the key assumptions that science depends on and can't give some examples of them, as a scientists, I'd implore you to not to continue to try and incorporate these types of ideas into your philosophies for the good of science until you better understand the issues.

On a more direct level with respect to evolution, I think you can also see this. Basically, evolution is blind and random process. I think you can see what you generally want is not a blind or random process.

[Kindred]

 

Historically and even today amongsts non-scientists with respect to even science, I've seen a whole lot more issues with intellectual dishonesty.  A whole lot more things like evolution is not consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

 

I wouldnt be to sure about that...

 

 

This idea has been put forward by many people to try to prove that evolution is impossible. However, it is based on a flawed understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, and in fact, the theory of evolution does not contradict any known laws of physics.

The second law of thermodynamics simply says that the entropy of a closed system will tend to increase with time. "Entropy" is a technical term with a precise physical definition, but for most purposes it is okay to think of it as equivalent to "disorder". Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics basically says that the universe as a whole gets more disordered and random as time goes on.

However, the most important part of the second law of thermodynamics is that it only applies to a closed system - one that does not have anything going in or out of it. There is nothing about the second law that prevents one part of a closed system from getting more ordered, as long as another part of the system is getting more disordered.

There are many examples from everyday life that prove it is possible to create order! For example, you'd certainly agree that a person is capable of taking a pile of wood and nails and constructing a building out of it. The wood and nails have become more ordered, but in doing the work required to make the building, the person has generated heat which goes into increasing the overall entropy of the universe.

Or, if you prefer an example that doesn't require conscious human intervention, consider what happens when the weather changes and it gets colder outside. Cold air has less entropy than warm air - basically, it is more "ordered" because the molecules aren't moving around as much and have fewer places they can be. So the entropy in your local part of the universe has decreased, but as long as that is accompanied by an increase in entropy somewhere else, the second law of thermodynamics has not been violated.

Continued...

 

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=441

[PeterMP]

I wouldnt be to sure about that...

 

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=441

 

1.  Generally, the mods don't like it when you copy and past large sections of text like that.  Give a snippet and then the link.

 

2.  I wasn't trying to say that the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that evolution can't happen.

 

I was saying that I've seen a lot of non-scientists try and claim that's the case, which is just wrong and therefore represents intellectual dishonest with respect to themselves (they've told themselves they understand something they don't really understand and that their position is right when it is not) or to others.

[alexey]

Peter I can tell you why you are finding it difficult to provide an example.

It's because these "assumptions" are not really assumptions. Science is not built on them. They do not support science, science supports them, experience supports them, feedback loops from the universe support them. Circular? No, actually, because you do not need assumptions to receive feedback from the universe.

Everything is interdependent, in knowledge, and it goes back billions of years. This is why you cannot provide a sensible example of one thing being different.

Consider the "I think therefore I am" idea. Do you see how evolution is baked into that statement?

[PeterMP]

Peter I can tell you why you are finding it difficult to provide an example.

It's because these "assumptions" are not really assumptions. Science is not built on them. They do not support science, science supports them, experience supports them, feedback loops from the universe support them. Circular? No, actually, because you do not need assumptions to receive feedback from the universe.

Everything is interdependent, in knowledge, and it goes back billions of years. This is why you cannot provide a sensible example of one thing being different.

Consider the "I think therefore I am" idea. Do you see how evolution is baked into that statement?

 

As I've already stated, I gave you examples in the other threads that I posted.

 

Obviously, I can't make you go back and re-read those threads.

 

This is where I say I'm through for now.

[alexey]

As I've already stated, I gave you examples in the other threads that I posted.

Obviously, I can't make you go back and re-read those threads.

This is where I say I'm through for now.

I evolved to anticipate this from you.

[alexey]

Peter,

I thought of another way to illustrate our differences.

When i go to sleep at night, I act like I will wake up on the morning but I assume that I may not. You may assume that you will.

[PeterMP]

Peter,

I thought of another way to illustrate our differences.

When i go to sleep at night, I act like I will wake up on the morning but I assume that I may not. You may assume that you will.

 

Alexey, I would tell you that I believe when I go to sleep there is low probability that I will not wake up.  I assume the probability is much higher that I will wake up.

 

I understand that I may die at various points in time, which is why I do things like pay for life insurance.  I generally believe my chance of dying at any given point in time, including when I am sleeping currently (based on my age and health) is pretty low.

 

If you want to claim that you believe differently that's find by me.

 

You've been given (and it has been requested) multiple chances in this thread to describe HOW your thought process is different especially in the context that it produces the same actions, and/or WHY it matters practically if it is going to produce the same actions.

 

So far you have not done so.

[alexey]

...

You've been given (and it has been requested) multiple chances in this thread to describe HOW your thought process is different especially in the context that it produces the same actions, and/or WHY it matters practically.

...

Please note that our behavior is actually very different albeit there is some overlap.

HOW different:

At a lower level, there is little difference because things are based directly on the feedback from the world.

At higher levels, we seem to subscribe to different metaphysics. I have embraced the bottom-up emergence/evolutionary model, and you seem to be working with the top-down "I am a rational actor with assumptions" model.

The latter model retains most obvious and most cherished mistakes from the early days of humanity. It is the Cartesian theater, one step away from souls, and two steps away from Ken Ham.

WHY it matters:

To you, it matters if you value learning, correcting mistakes, etc.. To me, it matters because I value things listed as well as working against mistakes, misunderstandings, confusion, etc., which I think you are spreading when you go around claiming that science requires assumptions, belief, faith.

Also, as we are learning about the brain, we are realizing that words like assumption, belief, faith can represent many very distinct mental states. People who study the brain typically stress a need for discussions about language, for more precise language, etc..

Can you find a single neuroscientist who does not recognize that the mismatch between our mental processes and the language traditionally used to describe them is a problem, who uses the derogatory term "word games" for it, like you do?

It seems that in your vigorous fight against a forum nemesis, you have turned yourself into a promoter of confusion and ignorance.

[PeterMP]

Please note that our behavior is actually very different albeit there is some overlap.

HOW different:

At a lower level, there is little difference because things are based directly on the feedback from the world.

At higher levels, we seem to subscribe to different metaphysics. I have embraced the bottom-up emergence/evolutionary model, and you seem to be working with the top-down "I am a rational actor with assumptions" model.

The latter model retains most obvious and most cherished mistakes from the early days of humanity. It is the Cartesian theater, one step away from souls, and two steps away from Ken Ham.

WHY it matters:

To you, it matters if you value learning, correcting mistakes, etc.. To me, it matters because I value things listed as well as working against mistakes, misunderstandings, confusion, etc., which I think you are spreading when you go around claiming that science requires assumptions, belief, faith.

Also, as we are learning about the brain, we are realizing that words like assumption, belief, faith can represent many very distinct mental states. People who study the brain typically stress a need for discussions about language, for more precise language, etc..

Can you find a single neuroscientist who does not recognize that the mismatch between our mental processes and the language traditionally used to describe them is a problem, who uses the derogatory term "word games" for it, like you do?

It seems that in your vigorous fight against a forum nemesis, you have turned yourself into a promoter of confusion and ignorance.

I have no problem with trying to generate a more precise language when having this discussion.

 

And I've regularly been more precise than you, including the above posts where you simply stated not assumed and assumed, and I had to come in and actually talk about probabilities as to simply say assume and not assume is not precise enough (and I've done similarly in our conversations before).

 

I've also in this thread written a post about the meaning of the definition of faith, including quoting from multiple sources and then giving an explanation of what I think the definition of faith should be in the context of the conversation and explaining WHY I think that should be the definition of faith used in this conversations.

 

You play WORD GAMES by playing into the AMBIGUITY of words AND YOUR PREVIOUS POST IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THAT WHERE YOU JUST USED THE WORD ASSUMED, when in MULTIPLE threads I've tried to nail you down in terms of being MORE PRECISE and talk about PROBABILITIES.

 

(and in terms of faith in this thread, you've simply stated the 'trust and confidence' defintion once so something like 6 words.)

 

The rest of the above post only continues feeding into your circular logic that I've already pointed out to you.

 

You are now building differences based on an argument based on circular logic.

 

And it did not really address the point.  Why do you act like you are going to wake up in the morning if you do not assume that you will?  Why would you even go to sleep if you though you would not wake up in the morning?

 

And if you think I can't support the idea that you are using circular logic without falling back on the idea of God, Christianity, and the thinking like Ken Ham, and not support it by published papers in respected journals dealing with philosophy by respected academics at respected academic institutions, then you need to go back and re-read the two threads I posted above.

 

I've promoted more understanding and less ignorance in any single thread related to creation and/or evolution, then you have your whole time on this board.

 

Including this thread and this post!

[s0crates]

When i go to sleep at night, I act like I will wake up on the morning but I assume that I may not. You may assume that you will.

I know this is meant to illustrate something about induction, but it made me wonder something slightly different:

Are squirrels aware of their own mortality? Or is that something uniquely human?

[alexey]

I know this is meant to illustrate something about induction, but it made me wonder something slightly different:

Are squirrels aware of their own mortality? Or is that something uniquely human?

I think it depends on what you mean by "aware". I'm terms of capacity, id guess squirrels cannot ponder death and dying. In terms of mental processes, id say humans are not aware of their own mortality most of the time.

Things seem to get really tricky when it comes to awareness because acting as if aware emerges much earlier than what we typically mean by the word.

At the same time, our inmate mechanisms assign agency/awareness to entities based on their actions, not their mental processes.

[Jumbo]

i wrote this as mainly a barbed (edgy fun, not really insulting) gag with some* truth attached a few days ago and then decided it might be unproductively disruptive. I am no longer so concerned about that, but the comedic timing would have been better if I had gone earlier. 

 

religion (and its predecessors) = the kids are scared
philosophy (and its predecessors) = the kids are playing with their poo
science (and its predecessors) = the kids are growing up and learning

 

<insert old grin smiley>

 

 

 

(*you decide how much for you--  --that's how we play the game   )  

[alexey]

And I've regularly been more precise than you, including the above posts where you simply stated not assumed and assumed, and I had to come in and actually talk about probabilities as to simply say assume and not assume is not precise enough (and I've done similarly in our conversations before).

Loss of precision can occur when you zoom out too far or zoom in too close.

When you talk about probabilities of things you do not know, you are trying to zoom in too close.

I've also in this thread written a post about the meaning of the definition of faith, including quoting from multiple sources and then giving an explanation of what I think the definition of faith should be in the context of the conversation and explaining WHY I think that should be the definition of faith used in this conversations.

Dictionary definition of faith as "strong belief" does not solve the problem of mapping our language to mental states.

You play WORD GAMES by playing into the AMBIGUITY of words AND YOUR PREVIOUS POST IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THAT WHERE YOU JUST USED THE WORD ASSUMED, when in MULTIPLE threads I've tried to nail you down in terms of being MORE PRECISE and talk about PROBABILITIES.

Zooming in too close. Precision requires evidence. Precision without evidence is called "making stuff up".

(and in terms of faith in this thread, you've simply stated the 'trust and confidence' defintion once so something like 6 words.)

I think there is sufficient evidence to distinguish between "justified confidence" and "faith"

The rest of the above post only continues feeding into your circular logic that I've already pointed out to you.

Zooming out too far. A complex system with feedback loops does not reduce to circular logic.

And it did not really address the point. Why do you act like you are going to wake up in the morning if you do not assume that you will?

After processing that possibility, my brain did not become sufficiently compelled to change behavior.

Why would you even go to sleep if you though you would not wake up in the morning?

I did not say that.

And if you think I can't support the idea that you are using circular logic without falling back on the idea of God, Christianity, and the thinking like Ken Ham, and not support it by published papers in respected journals dealing with philosophy by respected academics at respected academic institutions, then you need to go back and re-read the two threads I posted above.

I am not surprised that you see circularity in an evolutionary process.

Your position seems to be: science is based on assumptions, and those assumptions could be wrong.

Yet you cannot make an argument for it, or even provide an example... and my position explains why.

I've promoted more understanding and less ignorance in any single thread related to creation and/or evolution, then you have your whole time on this board.

Including this thread and this post!

May be so, but it does not render you infallible.

[s0crates]

Jumbo - I'm not sure I get the joke, but maybe that is because the joke is on me.

religion = dogmatic

science = empirical

philosophy = rational

religion = the kids believe in Santa (faith)

science = the kids don't believe in Santa (facts )

philosophy = the kids won't stop asking questions (logic)

Religion has one set of abstractions and science another. Philosophy is the critic of abstractions.

I hate to make you kill your joke by explaining it, but what I want to know is how philosophy becomes playing with poo.

Philosophy as play I get, but as playing with poo, I don't know, unless you mean the abstractions of both religion and science are poo. . .

[PeterMP]

I think there is sufficient evidence to distinguish between "justified confidence" and "faith"

I am not surprised that you see circularity in an evolutionary process.

 

What is it?  What is your evidence and why does that level of evidence reach the level of "justified confidence" and not faith?

 

Where is the line in the sand and why is it there?

 

The evolutionary process is not circular.  Your logic is circular where your argument is not just evolution.  The evolutionary process is most similar to a "random walk" (If your process is circular, it is not evolution, but that gets into your misrepresentation of evolution in the context of your larger ideas again).  

 

For examples go re-read the 2 threads I already posted.

 

(And you should take some time to learn the meaning of precise and precision, and I didn't make anything up.  I go to sleep because I assume there is a low probability that I will die.)

Just to point out, I've already essentially asked the same questions before in this thread:

 

You're shifting arguments.  Earlier there were jokes made by others about making progress, but from my perspective we had made progress because you had seemed to abandon this argument in this thread as compared to the last time we had this discussion though over the last page or so you are now shifting back to it (though the fact that you have reverted does not surprise me)..

 

This is an argument that I can assume the assumption is correct because there is evidence that the assumption is correct.

 

And therefore it isn't really an assumption.

 

This has two issues:

 

1.  In the context of the larger argument, as I've already pointed out many/most definitions faith are not based on faith having no evidence so if we say that you are now saying that you assume the assumption is true because of evidence that doesn't mean that it is not faith.  And as I've already stated (and I've told you in threads before) most people that I know that believe in god(s) will give you reasons for their belief.

 

Faith is not (necessarily) a belief without evidence.  It is a belief without proof.

 

2.  Why should you be confident, much less have justified confidence?  Did you create a random universe and carry out any sort of comparison to conclude that it is reasonable to be confidence?

And you didn't answer the questions then.

 

(Oh wait, I think that post actually contains one of those examples you've been looking for.  Oh shoot, you didn't even have to go back and re-read those other threads.)