Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (35045)	4/17/1999 1:49:00 AM
From: Kid Rock	Respond to of 108807

Short Stories 1 year anniversary #Subject-20326 Part I #reply-8977403 Part II #reply-8977520 Part III #reply-8977565 ~166 stories

To: jbe who wrote (35045)	4/17/1999 3:23:00 AM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (8) \| Respond to of 108807

Joan, I cannot let you slip this one by: and its use as a tool for deciding which of two hypotheses is more likely to be true. Nope! It is not a tool for deciding which one is more likely to be true. It is a tool for choosing the optimal working hypothesis. The truth of a hypothesis can never be proven. Hypotheses can only be disproven. What one does is look for specific predictions that arise from the hypothesis, and then seek to discover if those predictions are met. If they are not met, then the hypothesis is rejected. This is the principle of falsifiability. An hypothesis that cannot be falsified (in a logical sense) is useless. The more predictions that are made that are not falsified, the greater the confidence we have in the truth of the hypothesis. Apparantly you object to the inclusion of this sentence in the argument: That's why a scientist will always choose organic evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life over a "God's plan" type explanation. Once again I plead not guilty -- it is not a red herring. It is a precise example of the kind of thing I am talking about. The example was not used to prove a case -- simply to illustrate the point. Other examples could just as easily been used. Why does a good person die (God's will). Why did el nino hit last year (again God's will). On and on. What empiricists insist on is a proximal explanation. Not guilty! I submit that I am innocent of the other fallacies you charge me with. Using one sentence as a trailer (an example at that) hardly constitutes a straw man. If that were the case, any example I might cite would leave me open to a similar criticism. But had I not cited an example I could be accused of being vague. An interesting dilemma -- wouldn't you agree? In any case, I didn't argue the evidence for organic evolution, nor did I argue against creationsism. I simply cited it as an example of the use of Ockham's razor -- nothing more. There is a history that is missing here. And that history is the insistence by some that God's will is somehow exerted in the world, and that is the explanation for any number of things we do not know precisely. If you look at what I was saying, it was, in effect, that one need not invoke a deity to account for observations. And that the invocation of the deity injects needless complexity in the argument. For example, One may argue that man evolved along the general lines consistent with organic evolution. That does not negate or preclude the existence of God. But it does remove the requirement to invoke and then explain the role of God in the process. One could simply have the view that this was the mechanism God used for evolution. But insertion of God into this system as an active participant creates entirely new logical requirements. Not guilty! Finally, nowhere do I commit the bifurcation fallacy. The bifurcation fallacy depends on the artificial split of the universe into two subgroups that are either not mutually exclusive or do not encompass the entire universe of possibilities. The point that I make is that nowhere does their scientific position depend on the existence of God. So the implicit bifurcation was not one of a belief in God vs. a belief in organic evolution. It was a belief in divine plan (supernatural intervention) vs. non-supernatural explanations. I submit that that is a logical bifurcation. In fact there are a great number of Catholic priests who have written extensively in the field of evolutionary genetics. I question neither their faith in God nor their scientific positions. They are consistent. Bifurcations are useful. For example, I could logically split arguments up into two classes: those that invoke God as a proximal explanation for phenomena (i.e., supernatural intervention) and those that do not. I see no fallacy in that division. Fallacies exist when either the bifurcations are not mutually exclusive or do not sum to unity. A bifurcation of the form A ~A is never fallacious. Not guilty. I rest my case And while we're on the subject, your example of a fallacious bifurcation is fallacious <VBG>: Example: either you believe in organic evolution, or you believe in "God's plan." Reason: organic evolution is the result of stochastic processes. Since the key element is randomness, it cannot, by definition, be the result of a plan. Now perhaps you would quibble about whose plan, but I submit that any such plan would need to emanate from a deity to be effective. In fact I could restate the bifurcation thus: "Either you believe in organic evolution or you believe in determinism". I submit that the two form are equivalent. Maybe we need a jurist to wade through this. TTFN, CTC P.S,: Have you read Teilhard de Chardin, incidentally? Yes, years ago. But I get bored with people who endlessly conjecture about the nature of something they do not know exists, who have no hope of ever discovering the existence of such an entity, and come up with endless non-falsifiable hypotheses. I remember my cousin at the age of four inquiring quite seriously, "Does God wear a yellow hat?" I submit that much of the conjecture surrounding God is simply a more sophisticated way af asking the same unanswerable question. I am an empiricist through and through. Show me the hat, then we can discuss the color. PPS: I enjoy these kinds of debates immensely. Maybe this is my substitute for religion?