matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) (07/29/85)
Somebody said I should take a look at net.origins. I'm not sure whether to thank that person. What I see here is quite a collection of atyles of argument. Some people try to be careful about their deductive process but get involved in some v-e-r-y long arguments about their premises or evidence. Others proceed from point to point with no regard whatsoever for any rules of inference and sometimes, it seems, without even understanding the words they use to demonstrate their ignorance. As an illustration, here are some samples from a few articles by a person I will call "Dan" (because that is what he calls himself). Don't worry about the chance that these excerpts are taken out of context. There is no context in which they would look good, except perhaps in the context of the National Lampoon. > What is the difference between "described by" and "predicted by"? If the > model "describes" a certain set of observable circumstances, wouldn't > this also constitute "predicted by"? I have to hand it to this guy, he's not shy about his stupidity! The urge to form parodies is irresistable. How about: "My model of the United States includes the fact that Ronald Reagan is the president. Therefore I have predicted that Ronald Reagan is the president." Dan says: >>> I can just as easily say that I believe in creation because species >>> seem to have a common design. "Mike" replies: >>You can say it. But that doesn't make it valid reasoning. Dan answers: > Why isn't it valid reasoning? Let's suppose it were a valid argument. In that case stars must have been created by god because they are all round in shape, and that watches are not created because different ones work on such different principles. Here's another choice tidbit which I found amusing. > Wrong! My conclusion was this: Since there is nothing in the present > structure of natural law that can account for its own origin, the Universe > could not have created itself. Therefore, it must have had a supernatural > origin. Now Dan might mean one of two things by this, depending on how you interpret his phrase "present structure of natural law". He could be saying that because we do not yet know a scientific cause for the the existence of the universe, there cannot be a scientific cause. Or he could mean that he knows somehow that the laws of nature forbid the spontaneous origination of a universe. Either way, he's wrong. Dare I go into the reasons? If I don't I will probably be accused of "proof-by-assertion" and if I do I will probably get ridiculed by those who either can't understand the reasons or can't refute them. That seems to be how this group runs. Examples: > Ahhh! Now I understand what valid reasoning is! Quote a book title! ----------- >>Once again, a bald statement, with no reasoning. (And where you have >>presented a case in the past, it has been shown to be bad, if not >>dishonest.) > > Once again, an attack on my reasoning, with no explanation! Again, why > isn't it valid reasoning? Dishonest? Please explain! -------- >>Neither conclusion stems from rational thought. > Prove it! (I thought the last shows a good use of irony.) I hope I have captured the proper tone and style in this, my first and possibly last, contribution. I will watch as long as it remains amusing but perhaps net.origins could be replaced by a linear combination of net.flame, net.religion, and net.bizarre. Anyone who is not offended may write to me for individual attention. _____________________________________________________ Matt University crawford@anl-mcs.arpa Crawford of Chicago ihnp4!oddjob!matt
foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy ) (08/03/85)
In article <890@oddjob.UUCP> matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) writes: >Somebody said I should take a look at net.origins. I'm not sure >whether to thank that person. What I see here is quite a >collection of atyles of argument. Some people try to be careful >about their deductive process but get involved in some v-e-r-y long >arguments about their premises or evidence. Others proceed from >point to point with no regard whatsoever for any rules of inference Lots of interesting examples. > >I hope I have captured the proper tone and style in this, my first >and possibly last, contribution. I will watch as long as it >remains amusing but perhaps net.origins could be replaced by a >linear combination of net.flame, net.religion, and net.bizarre. >Anyone who is not offended may write to me for individual attention. > I like this article. It has stepped above the usual. Sometimes I wonder why there is so much argument about the origin of things. It doesn't bother me that some people believe that God created the world etc a few thousands of years ago, and that others believe that it was created by physical processes that began a few billions of years ago. I do get a little bothered when either tries to impose their beliefs on me. Please keep involved Matt.
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (08/08/85)
>Somebody said I should take a look at net.origins. I'm not sure >whether to thank that person. What I see here is quite a >collection of atyles of argument. Some people try to be careful >about their deductive process but get involved in some v-e-r-y long >arguments about their premises or evidence. Others proceed from >point to point with no regard whatsoever for any rules of inference >and sometimes, it seems, without even understanding the words they >use to demonstrate their ignorance. > >As an illustration, here are some samples from a few articles by a >person I will call "Dan" (because that is what he calls himself). >Don't worry about the chance that these excerpts are taken out of >context. There is no context in which they would look good, except >perhaps in the context of the National Lampoon. >> What is the difference between "described by" and "predicted by"? If the >> model "describes" a certain set of observable circumstances, wouldn't >> this also constitute "predicted by"? >I have to hand it to this guy, he's not shy about his stupidity! >The urge to form parodies is irresistable. How about: "My model >of the United States includes the fact that Ronald Reagan is the >president. Therefore I have predicted that Ronald Reagan is the >president." This is utter nonsense! This in no way can be compared to a scientific model of origins. A more reasonable comparison would be: :My model of the United States system of government includes a Congress according to a study of the constitution. Now we look at the United States and see that there is in fact a functioning Congress." Dan says: >>>> I can just as easily say that I believe in creation because species >>>> seem to have a common design. "Mike" replies: >>>You can say it. But that doesn't make it valid reasoning. Dan answers: >> Why isn't it valid reasoning? >Let's suppose it were a valid argument. In that case stars must >have been created by god because they are all round in shape, and >that watches are not created because different ones work on such >different principles. More nonsense! First of all I said species have a common design! Not lifeless objects. Maybe you should read the article more carefully before criticizing it. Secondly, you can just as easily make a mockery of the evolutionary argument of common ancestry. For example: Since things have a common ancestry, basketballs must have evolved from baseballs, which evolved from tennis balls which evolved from ping pong balls. Of course, now we have the ultimate species - bowling balls! This is as ridiculous as your example because I used an example that had no relationship whatsoever to the argument just as you did! >Here's another choice tidbit which I found amusing. >> Wrong! My conclusion was this: Since there is nothing in the present >> structure of natural law that can account for its own origin, the Universe >> could not have created itself. Therefore, it must have had a supernatural >> origin. >Now Dan might mean one of two things by this, depending on how you >interpret his phrase "present structure of natural law". He could >be saying that because we do not yet know a scientific cause for >the the existence of the universe, there cannot be a scientific >cause. Or he could mean that he knows somehow that the laws of >nature forbid the spontaneous origination of a universe. Either >way, he's wrong. Dare I go into the reasons? If I don't I will Or, I could be saying that since we DO NOT KNOW of any way NOTHING could have become SOMETHING through NATURAL PROCESSES, it is at least AS REASONABLE to conclude that "supernatural processes were the cause of origin" as it is to conclude that "we will someday discover the natural cause of origin"!! And, I might add that it is equally UNscientific and biased to rule out either _a priori_. So why shouldn't both be considered a valid hypothesis. >probably be accused of "proof-by-assertion" and if I do I will >probably get ridiculed by those who either can't understand the >reasons or can't refute them. That seems to be how this group >runs. Examples: >> Ahhh! Now I understand what valid reasoning is! Quote a book title! ----------- >>>Once again, a bald statement, with no reasoning. (And where you have >>>presented a case in the past, it has been shown to be bad, if not >>>dishonest.) >> Once again, an attack on my reasoning, with no explanation! Again, why >> isn't it valid reasoning? Dishonest? Please explain! -------- >>>Neither conclusion stems from rational thought. >> Prove it! >(I thought the last shows a good use of irony.) What is all of this suppose to prove? I do not make any sense of it. Is there supposed to be a point here? >I hope I have captured the proper tone and style in this, my first >and possibly last, contribution. I will watch as long as it >remains amusing but perhaps net.origins could be replaced by a >linear combination of net.flame, net.religion, and net.bizarre. >Anyone who is not offended may write to me for individual attention. >_____________________________________________________ >Matt University crawford@anl-mcs.arpa >Crawford of Chicago ihnp4!oddjob!matt What you have captured is a pointless and nonsensical contribution to this newsgroup! My suggestion is that you read net.nonsense for a while were you could make wonderful contributions. Dan
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (08/11/85)
> >> Wrong! My conclusion was this: Since there is nothing in the present > >> structure of natural law that can account for its own origin, the Universe > >> could not have created itself. Therefore, it must have had a supernatural > >> origin. > > >Now Dan might mean one of two things by this, depending on how you > >interpret his phrase "present structure of natural law". He could > >be saying that because we do not yet know a scientific cause for > >the the existence of the universe, there cannot be a scientific > >cause. Or he could mean that he knows somehow that the laws of > >nature forbid the spontaneous origination of a universe. Either > >way, he's wrong. Dare I go into the reasons? If I don't I will > > Or, I could be saying that since we DO NOT KNOW of any way NOTHING > could have become SOMETHING through NATURAL PROCESSES, it is at least > AS REASONABLE to conclude that "supernatural processes were the > cause of origin" as it is to conclude that "we will someday discover > the natural cause of origin"!! Even after you amended your origional statement, Dan, it is still hopelessly wrong. 'at least AS REASONABLE', indeed! When history is full of examples of unexplained phenomena which were later shown to have natural causes: weather, seasons, eclipses, rainbows, the sun's source of power, etc. At one time each of these phenomena were unexplainable according to the current understanding of physical law; naturalistic explanations were later found for each of them. Got as many good examples of unxplained phenomena which were later shown to have supernatural causes? If not, why are you certain that it is 'at least as reasonable' to postulate a supernatural explanation as to postulate a naturalistic one? Silly pseudo-quote: "Nobody used to understand why -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "My SO is red hot. Your SO aint doodely squat."
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (08/13/85)
[This line intentionally left blank] >>>,> = Dan Boskovich; >> = Matt Crawford >>> Wrong! My conclusion was this: Since there is nothing in the present >>> structure of natural law that can account for its own origin, the Universe >>> could not have created itself. Therefore, it must have had a supernatural >>> origin. > >>Now Dan might mean one of two things by this, depending on how you >>interpret his phrase "present structure of natural law". He could >>be saying that because we do not yet know a scientific cause for >>the the existence of the universe, there cannot be a scientific >>cause. Or he could mean that he knows somehow that the laws of >>nature forbid the spontaneous origination of a universe. Either >>way, he's wrong. Dare I go into the reasons? If I don't I will > > Or, I could be saying that since we DO NOT KNOW of any way NOTHING > could have become SOMETHING through NATURAL PROCESSES, it is at least > AS REASONABLE to conclude that "supernatural processes were the > cause of origin" as it is to conclude that "we will someday discover > the natural cause of origin"!! > > And, I might add that it is equally UNscientific and biased to rule > out either _a priori_. So why shouldn't both be considered a valid > hypothesis. (Why is it that you creationists are completely incapable of grasping the notion that there are qualitative differences between "natural" and "supernatural"? I'll try to demonstrate this patiently:) Would you consider the hypothesis "whenever you let go of something, god makes it fall" to be scientific? I sincerely hope not. But it does, after all, explain why everything up til now has fallen. So why isn't it scientific? Ten to one your first reaction is to say "because everybody knows gravity makes things fall". But the reason it's unscientific is *not* that an alternate natural explanation exists. It's unscientific because, not only does it have no application to any Other area, it can't even predict whether or not things will continue to fall. As many crea- tionists have pointed out, we simply *can't* predict what a supernatural being will do, and we can't know whether or not s/he'll keep it up (so to speak :-) ). Now this example is obviously unscientific, because there *is* an alter- native, scientific explanation that *not only* explains why everything up til now has fallen, *not only* predicts (with success) that things will continue to fall, it *also* explains a host of other neat things (like orbits and stuff). (For those of you on the edge of your seats wondering what theory it is, I'm talking about gravity. :-) But the point here is that the existence of an alternate, natural explanation has no impact on the actual quality of the supernatural explanation. It only serves as something to compare the latter to. The fact that alternate explanations *do* exist has no bearing on the validity of supernatural explanations, and the fact that they don't currently exist doesn't either. After all, "whenever you let go of something, god makes it fall" wasn't any more scientific *before* Newton than it is now. With or without natural explanations, supernatural explanations are just plain bad science. "But," you may say, "at least until natural explanations come along, supernatural ones are better than nothing." But think about that. Are they really? What do they buy us? They may explain how things actually are. But do they say anything at all about how things will be? And do they lead us to new and useful discoveries about other things? I believe (although (it should go without saying) I could be wrong) that genetics was spawned by an attempt to determine how individuals passed on their "relative advantages" according to the theory of natural selection. Certainly a host of archeological milestones are directly attributable to attempts to verify(/disprove) evolutionary theory. And by acknowledging the genetic relatedness between humans and other creatures, drugs can be more effectively tested without risking human lives, and hence are just lots and lots safer when they do hit the market. The list goes on. Now creation theory has been around a heck of a lot longer than evolutionary theory. In the long absence of the alternate, natural explanation, what scientific benefits did the supernatural one offer? On what basis would you claim that "supernatural explanations are better than nothing"? Or, if you say I've built a strawman and you *don't* claim that, on what basis would you claim that they're better than (or even "at least as good as") the natural ones that do exist? And if you don't claim either, then what the h*ll are posting to net.origins for? [This blank line, however, was an accident] -- --JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) "Oh yeah, P.S., I, I feel, feel like, I am in a burning building And I gotta go." (Laurie Anderson)
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/16/85)
In article <967@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) writes: >Now this example is obviously unscientific, because there *is* an alter- >native, scientific explanation that *not only* explains why everything up >til now has fallen, *not only* predicts (with success) that things will >continue to fall, it *also* explains a host of other neat things (like >orbits and stuff). (For those of you on the edge of your seats wondering >what theory it is, I'm talking about gravity. :-) But the point here is >that the existence of an alternate, natural explanation has no impact on >the actual quality of the supernatural explanation. It only serves as >something to compare the latter to. The fact that alternate explanations >*do* exist has no bearing on the validity of supernatural explanations, >and the fact that they don't currently exist doesn't either. After all, >"whenever you let go of something, god makes it fall" wasn't any more >scientific *before* Newton than it is now. With or without natural >explanations, supernatural explanations are just plain bad science. So far, so good. >"But," you may say, "at least until natural explanations come along, >supernatural ones are better than nothing." But think about that. Are >they really? What do they buy us? They may explain how things actually >are. But do they say anything at all about how things will be? And do >they lead us to new and useful discoveries about other things? I believe >(although (it should go without saying) I could be wrong) that genetics >was spawned by an attempt to determine how individuals passed on their >"relative advantages" according to the theory of natural selection. >Certainly a host of archeological milestones are directly attributable to >attempts to verify(/disprove) evolutionary theory. And by acknowledging >the genetic relatedness between humans and other creatures, drugs can be >more effectively tested without risking human lives, and hence are just >lots and lots safer when they do hit the market. The list goes on. Now >creation theory has been around a heck of a lot longer than evolutionary >theory. In the long absence of the alternate, natural explanation, what >scientific benefits did the supernatural one offer? On what basis would >you claim that "supernatural explanations are better than nothing"? Or, >if you say I've built a strawman and you *don't* claim that, on what >basis would you claim that they're better than (or even "at least as good >as") the natural ones that do exist? And if you don't claim either, then >what the h*ll are posting to net.origins for? Things were going along just fine until we ran into genetics, which, incidentally, is a very good example of the kind of erroneous argument about science that some have put forth on the net. Genetics, as most of us know, originated when Gregor Mendel realized that there was a pattern to the passing on of traits in the plants he was raising. People were already aware that traits were passed on to descendants, but they had no theory of how or in what proportions. Having stumbled onto a submissive gene, Mendel realized that these traits were somehow quantized. (This predated Darwin by quite some time, by the way.) People already had some ideas about this process, but the ideas were improper theories, just as spontaneous generation was an improper theory (and not a miracle, as Rich Rosen chooses to believe). Evolution as a theory came about in the same way. Darwin, upon observing birds and other animals in the Galapagos, came to the realization that the various species of finches (I think it was finches) were adapted to various habitats, and moreover, that he could relate them in such a way that it appeared that more specialized species derived from less specialized species. Generalizing from this, it became apparent to him that this kind of relation could be found almost anywhere, and, most importantly, that he could trace lines of speciation back into the fossil records. It is this kind of recognition of a pattern and generalization that is characteristic of valid scientific theories. Creationists have attacked evolution on supposedly scientific grounds. Whether or not their attacks have merit, I think that the end goal of their attacks (which is to clear out a space in science into which they can fit their religious doctrine) must be regarded with suspicion. Others, I should note, are not above suspicion. Currently in net.philosophy there is an argument about free will. Ignoring for the moment the problem that no one seems to have a coherent definition, some people have been making the assertion that "the world is almost entirely deterministic, so we must conclude that the mind is too, since there is no evidence to the contrary." This simply isn't valid science, because one can quite symmetrically argue that "the world has some random processes, so we must conclude that the mind is too, since there is no evidence to the contrary." The whole point is that there is no evidence. It's all well and good to construct hypotheses like these, but, in the utter lack of any real evidence or understanding of what happens in the human brain, they must remain hypotheses. This is precisely why you can't have creationism taught as science; as a hypothesis, it is impossible to prove (short of a revelation). Evolution has a lot of evidence to support it, but even if it is proven to be wrong, the choice is between evolution and "we don't know". Charley Wingate