A reader asks about Atheists attacks on Paley's Watchmaker Analogy. The Watchmaker's Analogy is simple and goes something like this: A person is walking through an area thought never to have been visited by man. He finds a watch lying on the ground. Is it more parsimonious to believe that it just occurred naturally, or that an intelligent being created it? The analogy is intended to argue for an intelligent creator, since intelligence exists.
Detractors of the analogy cite (what else) evolutionary "theories" which eliminate the need for an intelligent creator. In fact the emergent "emergence" hypotheses are now rampant.
Analogies are not proofs. An analogy is a logical demonstration of a rational procedure, using fabricated situations that are easier to understand than the more complex subject under scrutiny. And parsimony is not a law of nature, it is a rough guideline and can be violated as necessary. Applying parsimony to an analogy is senseless.
The evolution "theories" are really not theories in the technical sense, they are hypotheses created not out of known fact but out of assumed possibility, as imagined in the mind of an evolutionary philosopher. Evolution and emergence hypotheses for the main part cannot be proven due to a lack of direct empirical contact with the living ancient processes they intend to explain.
Evolution is supported by the abductive reasoning which is merely a fanciful extrapolation based on existing information, but is projected well beyond the actual, forensic or empirical scientific data. Abductive evolutionary hypothesis is therefore the creation of assumed information (artificially created, not forensically found) which is not only not existant, the information cannot conclusively be shown empirically. In short the information does not exist, except as a story. So it is known as "Just So Story Telling", after the famous book by Kipling.
The Watchmaker's Analogy is not abductive, it is purely an analogy. It is not made up to serve as a possible scenario or as a set of prefabricated data proposed to answer an otherwise unanswerable question. Analogies are demonstrations, not solutions.
So I think that fighting the Watchmker's battle is futile and unnecessary. It is an inconsequential skirmish that can't have an impact on the main issue. Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism are in the same category, and are futile arguments in an empirical atmosphere.
Perhaps if we ask, "is there a God to be found in material existence", we can say "No, not from any data, only from inference". We can also say that about evolution. But that is not the real question.
The question is, "is there an existence beyond the material, and if so how does that relate to the material existence?" Because within that question are embedded the larger, Godellian issues of hierarchical comprehension, hierarchical existence, hierarchical truth, and the meanings of all these.
Thanks for the question.
Showing posts with label Abduction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abduction. Show all posts
Monday, December 8, 2008
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Teaching the Controversy
The article, "Evolution, What's the Real Controversy?" misses the mark by miles. By going to a series of evolutionary lectures the author of the article, John Timmer, apparently expected to hear a review of the YEC/ID v.s. Evolution controversy; instead he heard the science being debated, and concluded that there is no controversy, at least amongst those scientists. Timmer commits the error of looking in the wrong place. The controversy he claimed to be looking for is between two communities, not within a single. And the controversy between communties does exist, as he could have known with proper searches of both communities. His conclusion of "no controversy" is indicative of a bias toward one community.
No matter what you might think of one side or the other, there is a very real dispute between these two ideas. It has been incendiary for at least 150 years. But should be resolved, and could be if both sides would put up their guns for awhile. The shots fired recently by the science-only community have not served to promote a view of science as an objective pursuit.
The recent frontal attacks on ID in the form of ridicule and lawsuits against the movie "Expelled" have not served science well. Such attacks smack of the very thing that is the subject of the movie. This in no way serves to bolster faith in science, and will probably work against it.
I am no YEC/ID proponent. Neither of these can satisfy the requirements of empirical science endeavors. Both require large extrapolations, and wind up being abductive in a big way. This is not to say that I support macro-evolution, which also is abductive; but that is not the issue here.
It seems to me that the most intellectually honest and straight-forward approach would be to teach as follows: First, teach a short section on the philosophy, methods and history of science; include the basics of critical thinking and probability as applied to evidence. This section would then be followed by a brief section on science v.s. non-science, such as chemistry or physics v.s. say, philosophy and mathematics, and a differentiation between them. Then science-only could begin to be taught, and "evolution v.s. ID" would fall away quickly as an issue.
I suspect that many teachers already do this, in varying degrees. But if it became official, as "teaching the controversy", then the controversy might be defused to some extent. If not for this generation, then the next perhaps. If science organizations supported this, it would easily happen.
The problem that seems to be recurrent is the religious-like attacks mounted by the pro-evolution camp against any mention of YEC/ID in education. This is hysteria, and is not rational; as stated before, the attacks are in the form of ridicule and lawsuits. In other words, the attacks are fear-based, and in the form of warfare. Scare-mongering from the science side proves the point: it will NOT be required that science classes teach "stork theory" along with sexual reproduction.
Teaching the controversy need not - and should not - include the idea that religion is or could be scientific. The controversy should address the questions, what is science? And what is not? Is there a reason not to do this?
The only reason is fear. (Perhaps the fear is justified, in the case of evolution...?)
No matter what you might think of one side or the other, there is a very real dispute between these two ideas. It has been incendiary for at least 150 years. But should be resolved, and could be if both sides would put up their guns for awhile. The shots fired recently by the science-only community have not served to promote a view of science as an objective pursuit.
The recent frontal attacks on ID in the form of ridicule and lawsuits against the movie "Expelled" have not served science well. Such attacks smack of the very thing that is the subject of the movie. This in no way serves to bolster faith in science, and will probably work against it.
I am no YEC/ID proponent. Neither of these can satisfy the requirements of empirical science endeavors. Both require large extrapolations, and wind up being abductive in a big way. This is not to say that I support macro-evolution, which also is abductive; but that is not the issue here.
It seems to me that the most intellectually honest and straight-forward approach would be to teach as follows: First, teach a short section on the philosophy, methods and history of science; include the basics of critical thinking and probability as applied to evidence. This section would then be followed by a brief section on science v.s. non-science, such as chemistry or physics v.s. say, philosophy and mathematics, and a differentiation between them. Then science-only could begin to be taught, and "evolution v.s. ID" would fall away quickly as an issue.
I suspect that many teachers already do this, in varying degrees. But if it became official, as "teaching the controversy", then the controversy might be defused to some extent. If not for this generation, then the next perhaps. If science organizations supported this, it would easily happen.
The problem that seems to be recurrent is the religious-like attacks mounted by the pro-evolution camp against any mention of YEC/ID in education. This is hysteria, and is not rational; as stated before, the attacks are in the form of ridicule and lawsuits. In other words, the attacks are fear-based, and in the form of warfare. Scare-mongering from the science side proves the point: it will NOT be required that science classes teach "stork theory" along with sexual reproduction.
Teaching the controversy need not - and should not - include the idea that religion is or could be scientific. The controversy should address the questions, what is science? And what is not? Is there a reason not to do this?
The only reason is fear. (Perhaps the fear is justified, in the case of evolution...?)
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Gore's Assault on Reason
Al Gore is not impressed by science apparently. Or maybe he just doesn't keep up. Gore has made a charge that the Myanmar cyclone was caused by the warming of the oceans. Gore has famously promoted anthropogenic global warming (AGW) warnings to the point of obtaining a Nobel prize. He claims that AGW science is settled. Is his evidence for this claim then, scientific?
Just recently I posted about NASA's data showing that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has been verified to have flipped states circa 2000, from hot to cold. This explains why the global temperature has shown no warming, for the last 8 years. To the east, the Atlantic oscillation has been attempted - unsuccessfully - to be mated to damage costs on the eastern coasts of the U.S. This failed primarily due to the false inflation of damage costs incurred by affluents who tend to live near the shore, and to faulty insurance and non-insured cost data. And according to Chris Landsea (more on him below), the granularity of wind speed measurement accuracy is too low to measure the differences in hurricane energies with enough accuracy to develop causality: The signal to noise ratio is too low.
In fact, AGW is not universally supported as Gore would have us think. As reported in INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY , February 07, 2008, "Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity."
"Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century."
"Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle."
"This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe."
"Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere."
Also, "...researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over the last 100 years.
If the sun is the driving factor, what of CO2 as a factor? "R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."
Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."
Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."
And according to IBD, "A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion. The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz. The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."
The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."
But the U.N.'s IPCC is undeterred in its assessment of both AGW and its effect on hurricanes. Kevin E. Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder and a "lead author" at IPCC made a claim for the connection between AGW and hurricanes. According to Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Staff Writer, Sunday, January 23, 2005, "A federal hurricane research scientist resigned in January of 2005 from a U.N.-sponsored climate assessment team, saying the group's leader had politicized the process.
Chris Landsea, who works at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's hurricane research division in Miami, said Monday that he would not contribute to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's chapter on atmospheric and surface climate conditions because the lead author had told reporters global warming contributed to intense Atlantic hurricanes last year.
Landsea said, "It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming," he wrote. "My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy."
Hans von Storch, a climatologist at the Institute for Coastal Research in Geesthacht, Germany, says "It's a demonstration of how highly politicized the IPCC process has become."
Storch and Lars Bärring of Lund University in Sweden published a paper on their study of storminess in Scandinavia since Napoleonic times. "That article is an outgrowth of work that began in the early 1990s, at time when, according to von Storch, European newspapers were full of stories about increasing storm activity, which was described as an early signal of global warming. A more careful analysis by von Storch's group, however, found that the level of storminess in Europe in 1995 was, in fact, similar to the level existing in 1900."
While these types of contradictory data are ignored by the IPCC, also ignored are their own data, according to some who accuse the summarizing authors of actually contradicting the conclusions of their own data. It is said that it is these summaries that are generally read and used for policy decisions, not the detailed data and analysis sections in the back of the IPCC reports. So exactly what is the science? It is not difficult to discover blogs of scientific disputation on the subject.
Most damaging is the Report of the U.S. Senate Committeee on Environment and Public Works December 20, 2007. This report reveals that the IPCC consensus involved only 52 scientists, who were politically constrained: "The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process."
The Senate report also lists over 400 scientists from around the world who are opposed to AGW, and gives their reasons for opposition. It also gives instances of oppression of dissension. There are 800% more scientists listed as opposed, than the original consensus contained. The "universal" consensus does not exist and never did.
It should be demanded of Gore that he show the irrefutable (settled) science that proves his assertion. Because without the science behind his cause-and-effect declaration, Gore is violating the AGW activist's main claim: that it is based on science. One suspects that Gore will have a hard time producing a data-driven defense of his accusation. This places Gore in the position of being guilty of his own "assault on reason".
Just recently I posted about NASA's data showing that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has been verified to have flipped states circa 2000, from hot to cold. This explains why the global temperature has shown no warming, for the last 8 years. To the east, the Atlantic oscillation has been attempted - unsuccessfully - to be mated to damage costs on the eastern coasts of the U.S. This failed primarily due to the false inflation of damage costs incurred by affluents who tend to live near the shore, and to faulty insurance and non-insured cost data. And according to Chris Landsea (more on him below), the granularity of wind speed measurement accuracy is too low to measure the differences in hurricane energies with enough accuracy to develop causality: The signal to noise ratio is too low.
In fact, AGW is not universally supported as Gore would have us think. As reported in INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY , February 07, 2008, "Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity."
"Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century."
"Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle."
"This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe."
"Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere."
Also, "...researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over the last 100 years.
If the sun is the driving factor, what of CO2 as a factor? "R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."
Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."
Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."
And according to IBD, "A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion. The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz. The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."
The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."
But the U.N.'s IPCC is undeterred in its assessment of both AGW and its effect on hurricanes. Kevin E. Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder and a "lead author" at IPCC made a claim for the connection between AGW and hurricanes. According to Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Staff Writer, Sunday, January 23, 2005, "A federal hurricane research scientist resigned in January of 2005 from a U.N.-sponsored climate assessment team, saying the group's leader had politicized the process.
Chris Landsea, who works at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's hurricane research division in Miami, said Monday that he would not contribute to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's chapter on atmospheric and surface climate conditions because the lead author had told reporters global warming contributed to intense Atlantic hurricanes last year.
Landsea said, "It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming," he wrote. "My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy."
Hans von Storch, a climatologist at the Institute for Coastal Research in Geesthacht, Germany, says "It's a demonstration of how highly politicized the IPCC process has become."
Storch and Lars Bärring of Lund University in Sweden published a paper on their study of storminess in Scandinavia since Napoleonic times. "That article is an outgrowth of work that began in the early 1990s, at time when, according to von Storch, European newspapers were full of stories about increasing storm activity, which was described as an early signal of global warming. A more careful analysis by von Storch's group, however, found that the level of storminess in Europe in 1995 was, in fact, similar to the level existing in 1900."
While these types of contradictory data are ignored by the IPCC, also ignored are their own data, according to some who accuse the summarizing authors of actually contradicting the conclusions of their own data. It is said that it is these summaries that are generally read and used for policy decisions, not the detailed data and analysis sections in the back of the IPCC reports. So exactly what is the science? It is not difficult to discover blogs of scientific disputation on the subject.
Most damaging is the Report of the U.S. Senate Committeee on Environment and Public Works December 20, 2007. This report reveals that the IPCC consensus involved only 52 scientists, who were politically constrained: "The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process."
The Senate report also lists over 400 scientists from around the world who are opposed to AGW, and gives their reasons for opposition. It also gives instances of oppression of dissension. There are 800% more scientists listed as opposed, than the original consensus contained. The "universal" consensus does not exist and never did.
It should be demanded of Gore that he show the irrefutable (settled) science that proves his assertion. Because without the science behind his cause-and-effect declaration, Gore is violating the AGW activist's main claim: that it is based on science. One suspects that Gore will have a hard time producing a data-driven defense of his accusation. This places Gore in the position of being guilty of his own "assault on reason".
Saturday, April 26, 2008
An Exemplary Biologist
The BBC reports that a paper published in the American Journal of Human Genetics concludes that the human population nearly speciated (my term) due to prolonged separation lasting 100,000 years, and occurring 150,000 years ago. Dr Spencer Wells, director of the Genographic Project, said that the African groups were isolated for a very long time as shown by differences in their mitochodrial DNA, which is genetic material inherited only from females. This gives a maternal history of a group. From this basis, scenarios have been hatched concerning the migratory patterns of each group. And from this, speculations as to why they split as well as how and where.
However, a rational voice is included in the mix: that of Dr. Sarah Tishkoff, of the University of Pennsylvania, who said,
The sentiment that wild extrapolations might not be true is unusual in the biological race to publish. Inferences drawn on the flimsiest of premises can be and are published at the drop of a hat. It is not de riguer to call them what they are, as Dr. Tishkoff did: inferences.
So my hat is off to Dr Tishkoff. May her example be followed and multiplied.
However, a rational voice is included in the mix: that of Dr. Sarah Tishkoff, of the University of Pennsylvania, who said,
"Although there is very deep divergence in the mitochondrial lineages, that can be different from inferring when the populations diverged from one another."
The sentiment that wild extrapolations might not be true is unusual in the biological race to publish. Inferences drawn on the flimsiest of premises can be and are published at the drop of a hat. It is not de riguer to call them what they are, as Dr. Tishkoff did: inferences.
So my hat is off to Dr Tishkoff. May her example be followed and multiplied.
Friday, March 28, 2008
An Atheist Speaks.
Not long ago a remote acquaintance related an announcement that was made by his daughter, a new college student. “I have looked through the telescope at deep space and there is no God out there,” she declared. I ached for both of them, for him because he had no idea how to respond, and for her, losing track of rational thought over so simple an issue. We are not taught how to think. We are taught what to think, or at least what to remember for the test.
Rational thought is a skill that is gained by studying it. It is not gained by just thinking that you have it. It is certainly not gained by maintaining ignorance of the methods of determining validity of evidence, or what constitutes evidence. Rationality is not attained by joining up with a group (although the fantasy of “personal eliteness” is). Rationality requires work; it requires intellectual discipline; it requires true skepticism, not cult “Skepticism”. It requires studying specific techniques and processes of discrimination that are used for validating propositions that are true and invalidating those that are false.
But these things are not pursued when a worldview is at stake. The formation of a self-centered worldview actually requires that rationalization replace rationality. When the objective is more important than the logical means to obtain it, then it is not rational, it is rationalized. This is the problem for Atheists: denying authority and creating self-eliteness is more important than the process required to support it. So any process will do.
Over at the blog, rationalatheist.com , Jennifer Umbehant presents her testimony, “Why I Don’t Believe in Christianity”. She presents a list of 16 reasons. I might take them on one at a time, if I have time. For now, let’s consider her summary statement.
The following statement is the conclusion of her list of reasons “not to believe in Christianity.” These paragraphs deserve comment:
“I could go on and on. But I'll try to sum it up a little: The first and foremost reason I am an atheist is because of my knowledge of evolution, astronomy and science in general. I can't see a world that would be "designed" like we have come about. Evolution by natural selection can explain almost everything we wonder about in the natural world here on Earth. Why would a God create a universe 13 BILLION years ago, then let the Earth form 4.5 BILLION years ago, just to have a religion that would FINALLY worship him only 2000 years ago? It doesn't make sense.
”Evolution can explain almost anything we wonder about here in the natural world. Why is our DNA almost 99% the same as chimps? Because of evolution. Why do we need sleep? It seems a designer could have formed us without that need, but evolution can say we need sleep to conserve energy. Why do we have appendixes that are useless? Why would God design us with useless organs? Evolution can tell us that these organs could have had a purpose in the past, but don't anymore. Why do chickens have teeth when they are in their embryonic forms? Why would a God form a chicken "in the womb" with teeth that get re-absorbed back into the body later? Evolution has an answer.
”Turning away from Christianity and my earlier beliefs took YEARS. But I've really thought it through. What I was taught and what I have read in the Bible was not sufficient enough to answer my doubts and provide me with a rational reason for believing in a god.”
http://www.rationalatheist.com/Articles/christianity_dont.html
Her first statement reveals her scientism:
“The first and foremost reason I am an atheist is because of my knowledge of evolution, astronomy and science in general.”
Knowledge of evolution, astronomy and science is not enough to make a decision on non-material entities. What is speaking here is not evolution, astronomy, and science, it is a conviction for philosophical materialism, a patently false and easily falsifiable philosophy.
Knowledge of material manifestations has no bearing whatsoever on non-material manifestations. While this might seem to be a rookie mistake, it is so common that it needs to be the poster-child for the non-rational, rationalization syndrome. Looking for the non-material within the exclusively material domain is blatantly not rational.
Viewing the universe from a human point of view, in order to make sense of it from a deity’s point of view, is without merit. It does not disprove a deity to say that “I don’t comprehend or make sense of the creation”. In fact, as most atheists will admit, denial of a negative is not proof of a negative. Negatives cannot be proven. (Hence the faery, unicorn, orbiting teapot, flying spaghetti monster strawmen, to be addressed independently of this).
In addition, the use of demonstrably false “science” statements reveals bias-as-fact, creating excuses rather than following evidence. For example, chickens do not have teeth in embryonic form, they have bumps on their forming beaks; attempts to manipulate DNA in order to induce chicks to grow teeth produced somewhat larger, but still microscopic, bumps, not teeth (teeth are not bumps on a bone – they are not even bone; they are unique specialized mechanisms). The appendix is now thought as a “reboot” device which enables an ill gut to be replenished with digestive bacteria after a purging illness. Chimps do not have 99% the same DNA as humans except in the carefully chosen, extremely tiny region of DNA that was selected to be explored with the expressly stated expectation of showing similarity; remaining huge areas of DNA have not been compared, but are not expected to show similarities of anywhere near that order – that’s why they weren’t tested in the first place.
And evolution, of course. The reason it can explain everything is that it is composed of story telling. It cannot be falsified, because it cannot be proven, empirically. Therefore, evolution (macro) is a metaphysical concept, not an empirical concept. (One should read Popper before delivering scientistic atheist manifestos). Evolution is historical, forensic, inductive, speculative, abductive; it is not empirical. The fact that evolution has an answer for “everything” should be a clue: if it explains contradictory (paradoxical) instances, it cannot be a valid conclusion. In fact, it is not evolution that explains everything, it is the stories made up about evolution that try to look as if they do. The fallacy is called Ad Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: “Just So Stories”.
The lack of education concerning the process of logic, rational thought, and empiricism vs. forensic abduction is clearly shown in statements like these. So it is not rationalism that brought Jennifer to atheism, it was something else, using rationalization to justify it. What it was we don’t really know. And possibly neither does she.
Rational thought is a skill that is gained by studying it. It is not gained by just thinking that you have it. It is certainly not gained by maintaining ignorance of the methods of determining validity of evidence, or what constitutes evidence. Rationality is not attained by joining up with a group (although the fantasy of “personal eliteness” is). Rationality requires work; it requires intellectual discipline; it requires true skepticism, not cult “Skepticism”. It requires studying specific techniques and processes of discrimination that are used for validating propositions that are true and invalidating those that are false.
But these things are not pursued when a worldview is at stake. The formation of a self-centered worldview actually requires that rationalization replace rationality. When the objective is more important than the logical means to obtain it, then it is not rational, it is rationalized. This is the problem for Atheists: denying authority and creating self-eliteness is more important than the process required to support it. So any process will do.
Over at the blog, rationalatheist.com , Jennifer Umbehant presents her testimony, “Why I Don’t Believe in Christianity”. She presents a list of 16 reasons. I might take them on one at a time, if I have time. For now, let’s consider her summary statement.
The following statement is the conclusion of her list of reasons “not to believe in Christianity.” These paragraphs deserve comment:
“I could go on and on. But I'll try to sum it up a little: The first and foremost reason I am an atheist is because of my knowledge of evolution, astronomy and science in general. I can't see a world that would be "designed" like we have come about. Evolution by natural selection can explain almost everything we wonder about in the natural world here on Earth. Why would a God create a universe 13 BILLION years ago, then let the Earth form 4.5 BILLION years ago, just to have a religion that would FINALLY worship him only 2000 years ago? It doesn't make sense.
”Evolution can explain almost anything we wonder about here in the natural world. Why is our DNA almost 99% the same as chimps? Because of evolution. Why do we need sleep? It seems a designer could have formed us without that need, but evolution can say we need sleep to conserve energy. Why do we have appendixes that are useless? Why would God design us with useless organs? Evolution can tell us that these organs could have had a purpose in the past, but don't anymore. Why do chickens have teeth when they are in their embryonic forms? Why would a God form a chicken "in the womb" with teeth that get re-absorbed back into the body later? Evolution has an answer.
”Turning away from Christianity and my earlier beliefs took YEARS. But I've really thought it through. What I was taught and what I have read in the Bible was not sufficient enough to answer my doubts and provide me with a rational reason for believing in a god.”
http://www.rationalatheist.com/Articles/christianity_dont.html
Her first statement reveals her scientism:
“The first and foremost reason I am an atheist is because of my knowledge of evolution, astronomy and science in general.”
Knowledge of evolution, astronomy and science is not enough to make a decision on non-material entities. What is speaking here is not evolution, astronomy, and science, it is a conviction for philosophical materialism, a patently false and easily falsifiable philosophy.
Knowledge of material manifestations has no bearing whatsoever on non-material manifestations. While this might seem to be a rookie mistake, it is so common that it needs to be the poster-child for the non-rational, rationalization syndrome. Looking for the non-material within the exclusively material domain is blatantly not rational.
Viewing the universe from a human point of view, in order to make sense of it from a deity’s point of view, is without merit. It does not disprove a deity to say that “I don’t comprehend or make sense of the creation”. In fact, as most atheists will admit, denial of a negative is not proof of a negative. Negatives cannot be proven. (Hence the faery, unicorn, orbiting teapot, flying spaghetti monster strawmen, to be addressed independently of this).
In addition, the use of demonstrably false “science” statements reveals bias-as-fact, creating excuses rather than following evidence. For example, chickens do not have teeth in embryonic form, they have bumps on their forming beaks; attempts to manipulate DNA in order to induce chicks to grow teeth produced somewhat larger, but still microscopic, bumps, not teeth (teeth are not bumps on a bone – they are not even bone; they are unique specialized mechanisms). The appendix is now thought as a “reboot” device which enables an ill gut to be replenished with digestive bacteria after a purging illness. Chimps do not have 99% the same DNA as humans except in the carefully chosen, extremely tiny region of DNA that was selected to be explored with the expressly stated expectation of showing similarity; remaining huge areas of DNA have not been compared, but are not expected to show similarities of anywhere near that order – that’s why they weren’t tested in the first place.
And evolution, of course. The reason it can explain everything is that it is composed of story telling. It cannot be falsified, because it cannot be proven, empirically. Therefore, evolution (macro) is a metaphysical concept, not an empirical concept. (One should read Popper before delivering scientistic atheist manifestos). Evolution is historical, forensic, inductive, speculative, abductive; it is not empirical. The fact that evolution has an answer for “everything” should be a clue: if it explains contradictory (paradoxical) instances, it cannot be a valid conclusion. In fact, it is not evolution that explains everything, it is the stories made up about evolution that try to look as if they do. The fallacy is called Ad Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: “Just So Stories”.
The lack of education concerning the process of logic, rational thought, and empiricism vs. forensic abduction is clearly shown in statements like these. So it is not rationalism that brought Jennifer to atheism, it was something else, using rationalization to justify it. What it was we don’t really know. And possibly neither does she.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Ubiquity in Multiverses
Why should there be any multiverses? Is there evidence for them? Can the theory be falsified? Is the theory logically necessary? Where did this story originate, and why?
Multiverses are an attempt to get around the need for extra-universal intervention in producing a life-friendly universal environment, including fine-tuning the constants that make the universe what it is. The idea that an intelligence greater than Dawkins and Hawking and all the other skeptics combined and raised to the nth power... exists and even meddles, is anathema to those skeptics. So they invented a story out of whole cloth: multiverse theory, with, oh let's say, an infinite number of universes, where ours just happens to be the one out of the infinity that is capable of life. There, that kills off the need for any intelligence greater than the sum of the skeptics'.
Skeptics are materialists. The mind is material. If all material is removed from the universe, nothing is left. Oh, maybe the Higgs Field, or whatever; the point is that man is purely material, and this is necessary in the light of the absolute truth value of the Atheist position. (The conclusion proves the premise).
Now Atheism is not provable, nor is it falsifiable, empirically, because it is not a material object. So evidentiarily, Atheism is not a sustainable theory, especially by materialistic evidence. But it is nonetheless an article of absolute faith that Atheism is the only truth. This trickles down into the necessity of multiverses, not empirically necessary, not logically necessary, but necessary to the Atheist faith. Again the conclusion proves the premise.
But the materialists blindly assume that their multiverses are parallel material universes. Understanding that all infinity stories are flawed from the get-go, let's assume that there really are an infinite number of universes. And we will not let it go at that, we will pursue it to its logical conclusion.
First off, multiverse theory projects an infinity of material universes, existing in the same three dimensions plus time, that our universe exists. Is it necessary to stop there? Absolutely not! There must also be universes that exist in dimensions 1 thru 3, without time; dimensions 2 through 4, with and without time; dimensions 2 through 5, with and without time; dimensions 17 through 92, dimensions 42 through 964, sans 457 through 598, with and without time. You get the picture. An infinity of dimensions is just as predictable as an infinity of universes.
So, given a separate universe of say, conservatively, dimensions 4 through 26 without time, because it is not material in our 3-D sense, there is no reason to predict that it could not coincide and overlay our universe of paltry dimensions 1 through 3 plus time.
Moreover, there is no reason to predict that this superimposed universe, (4 through 26, no time) could not sustain life. And there is no reason to predict that the life contained in such a universe would not be far different from any concept we could possibly entertain of living entities.
And even more moreover, this projected life would of necessity be non-material...!
So the multiverse theory, taken to its logical conclusion, actually serves to predict that there could well be...
a) universes with an infinite number of combinations of dimensions;
b) universes that are in no way material (no x,y,z,t space-time);
c) universes undetectable by us that overlay us.
d) universes that contain life in a structure that we cannot comprehend;
e) an infinite number of the above, in an infinite number of combinations.
At this point one senses that the skeptics will want to either abandon the multiverse fable, or entertain the possibility of massively intelligent life that overlays our own meager existence.
Either way, the multiverse story does not serve to eliminate the existence of the dreaded extra-universal superintelligence. The "rational" religion once again has shown itself to be the "rationalizing" religion.
Multiverses are an attempt to get around the need for extra-universal intervention in producing a life-friendly universal environment, including fine-tuning the constants that make the universe what it is. The idea that an intelligence greater than Dawkins and Hawking and all the other skeptics combined and raised to the nth power... exists and even meddles, is anathema to those skeptics. So they invented a story out of whole cloth: multiverse theory, with, oh let's say, an infinite number of universes, where ours just happens to be the one out of the infinity that is capable of life. There, that kills off the need for any intelligence greater than the sum of the skeptics'.
Skeptics are materialists. The mind is material. If all material is removed from the universe, nothing is left. Oh, maybe the Higgs Field, or whatever; the point is that man is purely material, and this is necessary in the light of the absolute truth value of the Atheist position. (The conclusion proves the premise).
Now Atheism is not provable, nor is it falsifiable, empirically, because it is not a material object. So evidentiarily, Atheism is not a sustainable theory, especially by materialistic evidence. But it is nonetheless an article of absolute faith that Atheism is the only truth. This trickles down into the necessity of multiverses, not empirically necessary, not logically necessary, but necessary to the Atheist faith. Again the conclusion proves the premise.
But the materialists blindly assume that their multiverses are parallel material universes. Understanding that all infinity stories are flawed from the get-go, let's assume that there really are an infinite number of universes. And we will not let it go at that, we will pursue it to its logical conclusion.
First off, multiverse theory projects an infinity of material universes, existing in the same three dimensions plus time, that our universe exists. Is it necessary to stop there? Absolutely not! There must also be universes that exist in dimensions 1 thru 3, without time; dimensions 2 through 4, with and without time; dimensions 2 through 5, with and without time; dimensions 17 through 92, dimensions 42 through 964, sans 457 through 598, with and without time. You get the picture. An infinity of dimensions is just as predictable as an infinity of universes.
So, given a separate universe of say, conservatively, dimensions 4 through 26 without time, because it is not material in our 3-D sense, there is no reason to predict that it could not coincide and overlay our universe of paltry dimensions 1 through 3 plus time.
Moreover, there is no reason to predict that this superimposed universe, (4 through 26, no time) could not sustain life. And there is no reason to predict that the life contained in such a universe would not be far different from any concept we could possibly entertain of living entities.
And even more moreover, this projected life would of necessity be non-material...!
So the multiverse theory, taken to its logical conclusion, actually serves to predict that there could well be...
a) universes with an infinite number of combinations of dimensions;
b) universes that are in no way material (no x,y,z,t space-time);
c) universes undetectable by us that overlay us.
d) universes that contain life in a structure that we cannot comprehend;
e) an infinite number of the above, in an infinite number of combinations.
At this point one senses that the skeptics will want to either abandon the multiverse fable, or entertain the possibility of massively intelligent life that overlays our own meager existence.
Either way, the multiverse story does not serve to eliminate the existence of the dreaded extra-universal superintelligence. The "rational" religion once again has shown itself to be the "rationalizing" religion.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Altruism vs. Evolution
Why is altruism under attack? Why is this characteristic being beaten around so by the materialist scientism community? What would evolution lose if altruism is not force-fit into the “fittest” mold?
Altruism is a direct threat to the idea that evolution causes everything, just everything. So, along with the concept of a separable mind (A.J. Ayers' OBE notwithstanding), altruism must be conquered, and soon. Here are some of the recent assaults on altruism.
These are some headlines from the world of aforensic Abductive scientism.
Inner Workings Of The Magnanimous Mind: Why It Feels Good To Be Altruistic
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070528162351.htm
“One study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,* involved about 20 people, each of whom had the potential to walk away with a pot of $128. They also were given a separate pool of funds, which they could choose to distribute to a variety of charities linked to controversial issues, such as abortion and the death penalty. A computer presented each charity to the subjects in series, and gave them the option to donate, to oppose donation, or to receive a payoff, adding money to the pot. Sometimes, the decision to donate or oppose was costly, calling for subjects to take money out of the pot.
“It turned out that a similar pattern of brain activity was seen when subjects chose either to donate or take a payoff. Both types of decisions were associated with heightened activity in parts of the midbrain, a region deep in the brain that is known to be involved in primal desires (such as food and sex) and the satisfaction of them. This result provides the first evidence that the "joy of giving" has an anatomical basis in the brain – surprisingly, one that is shared with selfish longings and rewards”
How could there have been any question that the brain is involved with an altruistic decision? What is shown here is the presupposition of the 'materialistic mind', which preassumes that brain activity shows the mind's locus for a particular function, now and forever. This of course has been trounced by the findings that the brain map changes, and not only that, the mind can change the map. This is science, not science fictional stories.
Human-like Altruism Shown In Chimpanzees
ScienceDaily (Jun. 25, 2007) — http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070625085134.htm
Experimental evidence reveals that chimpanzees will help other unrelated humans and conspecifics without a reward, showing that they share crucial aspects of altruism with humans.
Debates about altruism are often based on the assumption that it is either unique to humans or else the human version differs from that of other animals in important ways. Thus, only humans are supposed to act on behalf of others, even toward genetically unrelated individuals, without personal gain, at a cost to themselves.
Studies investigating such behaviors in nonhuman primates, especially our close relative the chimpanzee, form an important contribution to this debate.
Felix Warneken and colleagues from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology present experimental evidence that chimpanzees act altruistically toward genetically unrelated conspecifics.
In addition, in two comparative experiments, they found that both chimpanzees and human infants helped altruistically regardless of any expectation of reward, even when some effort was required, and even when the recipient was an unfamiliar individual--all features previously thought to be unique to humans.
The evolutionary roots of human altruism may thus go deeper than previously thought, reaching as far back as the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. In a related article, Frans de Waal discusses the issues brought out by this discovery.
The gambit is, if evolution is falsified, just push it farther into the "deep time" of antiquity, using Just So Stories, which will convince just everyone.
PBS and the Elephants
In a recent PBS airing of an elephant troupe being followed through a series of annual visits, at one point an elephant mother was found to be ailing. She had a calf, who tried to nurse, but the mother was too weak. The troupe remained in the vicinity, after all she was part of the family. When she ultimately died, the other females removed the calf, and took it with them when they left the area. This is a direct slap at the “pursuit of the fittest”, taken in its literal form.
In their book, “Evolutionary Dynamics of a Population”, the Grants document a male Finch which kept two nests fed, not just one. The second nest was not even of his species. The Finch was exhausted, but kept it up. There is no "Fittest" logic or stories to justify this behavior.
But evolutionists no longer stick to the original logic of the “fittest”. Their conundrum now is to devise a new forcing function that will jam the data into the theory. So, for starters, they place its genesis (they don’t call it that of course) back farther into unreachable dark antiquity, merely because multiple species exhibit the characteristic.
Then, they must explain why. After all, Dawkins tells us that we are machines built by our genes for their propagation, and nothing more. Therefore, altruism must come from the genes, not the free-will decision to help someone out. There is no free-will for us to use.
So stories must be created to cover the ground of why altruism is actually a selfish move, designed to help our success, not the recipient of our help. If you detect the standard logical inversion of atheism somewhere around here, raise your hand.
Dawkins, in his “Selfish Gene” muffs the program right up front on page 3, where he declares that altruism is a learned characteristic. He also says, right up front, that he “will be using factual details only as illustrative examples”. So apparently the book is a philosophical, non-empirical, non-forensic excursion through the dim, misty valleys of Dawkins' mind. Nonetheless, Dawkins has lent his mighty name to the “altruism is learned” camp.
But wait! By page seven, Dawkins gives the following account of the evolution of altruism:
“To put it in a slightly more respectable way, a group, such as a species or a population within a species, whose individual members are prepared to sacrifice themselves for the welfare of the group, may be less likely to go extinct than a rival group whose individual members place their own selfish interests first. Therefore the world becomes populated mainly by groups consisting of self-sacrificing individuals.”
Dawkins, “Selfish Gene”, p7.
Whoa! Where in the world did the group of self-sacrificers come from in the first place? And, if the theory is right, all species would have a very large preemptive-strike unit composed of Kamikaze-like suicide interventionists. That is not what altruism is all about. I’m sure Dawkins knows that, too. Altruism is a decision made to extend oneself beyond normal limits in order to help another. On the other hand, a preprogrammed response is determinate, another Atheist requirement of behavior. It cannot be considered generous if the control program forces you to do it.
Moreover, the twist on the definition of altruism is a mark of intellectual dishonesty. The Finch was not preprogrammed to help out the nestlings of a different species. And the bird's action was not one of preemptive kamikazeism.
Dawkins, however, immediately takes off on a different tack. He discredits the "group theory", not with data of course, but just by saying that it is discredited. And he surges into his own theory of "selfish genes", a theory trashed thoroughly by philosopher David Stove, pointing out that anthropomorphizing molecules is a category error, at a minimum; molecules can't be selfish, they aren't cogent. They can't create vehicles for their own use, they aren't creative. They are molecules: an effect, not a cause.
This is the reason that altruism is not a product of evolution. The data does not match the Abductive story-telling being foisted off as science. It is not science. It is worldview propagation using corrupted science-fiction, passed off as science. And as such it is abhorrent to anyone looking to match experimental data to the intuited truths of the logical realities, both physical and non-physical. In other words, anyone who loves the truth.
Dawkins fails miserably at presenting his fantasies as science, which fall to dust under the slightest logical scrutiny.
Altruism is a direct threat to the idea that evolution causes everything, just everything. So, along with the concept of a separable mind (A.J. Ayers' OBE notwithstanding), altruism must be conquered, and soon. Here are some of the recent assaults on altruism.
These are some headlines from the world of aforensic Abductive scientism.
Inner Workings Of The Magnanimous Mind: Why It Feels Good To Be Altruistic
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070528162351.htm
“One study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,* involved about 20 people, each of whom had the potential to walk away with a pot of $128. They also were given a separate pool of funds, which they could choose to distribute to a variety of charities linked to controversial issues, such as abortion and the death penalty. A computer presented each charity to the subjects in series, and gave them the option to donate, to oppose donation, or to receive a payoff, adding money to the pot. Sometimes, the decision to donate or oppose was costly, calling for subjects to take money out of the pot.
“It turned out that a similar pattern of brain activity was seen when subjects chose either to donate or take a payoff. Both types of decisions were associated with heightened activity in parts of the midbrain, a region deep in the brain that is known to be involved in primal desires (such as food and sex) and the satisfaction of them. This result provides the first evidence that the "joy of giving" has an anatomical basis in the brain – surprisingly, one that is shared with selfish longings and rewards”
How could there have been any question that the brain is involved with an altruistic decision? What is shown here is the presupposition of the 'materialistic mind', which preassumes that brain activity shows the mind's locus for a particular function, now and forever. This of course has been trounced by the findings that the brain map changes, and not only that, the mind can change the map. This is science, not science fictional stories.
Human-like Altruism Shown In Chimpanzees
ScienceDaily (Jun. 25, 2007) — http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070625085134.htm
Experimental evidence reveals that chimpanzees will help other unrelated humans and conspecifics without a reward, showing that they share crucial aspects of altruism with humans.
Debates about altruism are often based on the assumption that it is either unique to humans or else the human version differs from that of other animals in important ways. Thus, only humans are supposed to act on behalf of others, even toward genetically unrelated individuals, without personal gain, at a cost to themselves.
Studies investigating such behaviors in nonhuman primates, especially our close relative the chimpanzee, form an important contribution to this debate.
Felix Warneken and colleagues from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology present experimental evidence that chimpanzees act altruistically toward genetically unrelated conspecifics.
In addition, in two comparative experiments, they found that both chimpanzees and human infants helped altruistically regardless of any expectation of reward, even when some effort was required, and even when the recipient was an unfamiliar individual--all features previously thought to be unique to humans.
The evolutionary roots of human altruism may thus go deeper than previously thought, reaching as far back as the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. In a related article, Frans de Waal discusses the issues brought out by this discovery.
The gambit is, if evolution is falsified, just push it farther into the "deep time" of antiquity, using Just So Stories, which will convince just everyone.
PBS and the Elephants
In a recent PBS airing of an elephant troupe being followed through a series of annual visits, at one point an elephant mother was found to be ailing. She had a calf, who tried to nurse, but the mother was too weak. The troupe remained in the vicinity, after all she was part of the family. When she ultimately died, the other females removed the calf, and took it with them when they left the area. This is a direct slap at the “pursuit of the fittest”, taken in its literal form.
In their book, “Evolutionary Dynamics of a Population”, the Grants document a male Finch which kept two nests fed, not just one. The second nest was not even of his species. The Finch was exhausted, but kept it up. There is no "Fittest" logic or stories to justify this behavior.
But evolutionists no longer stick to the original logic of the “fittest”. Their conundrum now is to devise a new forcing function that will jam the data into the theory. So, for starters, they place its genesis (they don’t call it that of course) back farther into unreachable dark antiquity, merely because multiple species exhibit the characteristic.
Then, they must explain why. After all, Dawkins tells us that we are machines built by our genes for their propagation, and nothing more. Therefore, altruism must come from the genes, not the free-will decision to help someone out. There is no free-will for us to use.
So stories must be created to cover the ground of why altruism is actually a selfish move, designed to help our success, not the recipient of our help. If you detect the standard logical inversion of atheism somewhere around here, raise your hand.
Dawkins, in his “Selfish Gene” muffs the program right up front on page 3, where he declares that altruism is a learned characteristic. He also says, right up front, that he “will be using factual details only as illustrative examples”. So apparently the book is a philosophical, non-empirical, non-forensic excursion through the dim, misty valleys of Dawkins' mind. Nonetheless, Dawkins has lent his mighty name to the “altruism is learned” camp.
But wait! By page seven, Dawkins gives the following account of the evolution of altruism:
“To put it in a slightly more respectable way, a group, such as a species or a population within a species, whose individual members are prepared to sacrifice themselves for the welfare of the group, may be less likely to go extinct than a rival group whose individual members place their own selfish interests first. Therefore the world becomes populated mainly by groups consisting of self-sacrificing individuals.”
Dawkins, “Selfish Gene”, p7.
Whoa! Where in the world did the group of self-sacrificers come from in the first place? And, if the theory is right, all species would have a very large preemptive-strike unit composed of Kamikaze-like suicide interventionists. That is not what altruism is all about. I’m sure Dawkins knows that, too. Altruism is a decision made to extend oneself beyond normal limits in order to help another. On the other hand, a preprogrammed response is determinate, another Atheist requirement of behavior. It cannot be considered generous if the control program forces you to do it.
Moreover, the twist on the definition of altruism is a mark of intellectual dishonesty. The Finch was not preprogrammed to help out the nestlings of a different species. And the bird's action was not one of preemptive kamikazeism.
Dawkins, however, immediately takes off on a different tack. He discredits the "group theory", not with data of course, but just by saying that it is discredited. And he surges into his own theory of "selfish genes", a theory trashed thoroughly by philosopher David Stove, pointing out that anthropomorphizing molecules is a category error, at a minimum; molecules can't be selfish, they aren't cogent. They can't create vehicles for their own use, they aren't creative. They are molecules: an effect, not a cause.
This is the reason that altruism is not a product of evolution. The data does not match the Abductive story-telling being foisted off as science. It is not science. It is worldview propagation using corrupted science-fiction, passed off as science. And as such it is abhorrent to anyone looking to match experimental data to the intuited truths of the logical realities, both physical and non-physical. In other words, anyone who loves the truth.
Dawkins fails miserably at presenting his fantasies as science, which fall to dust under the slightest logical scrutiny.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: Just So Stories
When rational folks look for evidence to support their theories, they would like to be able to convice others that they have the right stuff to back them up. Now you might think that hard evidence, say empirical, might be the most common type of evidence to offer up. I think there is another kind that might be even more commonly used, even though it is fallacious. As you probably suspect, the official name of this type of evidence, per the title of this post, is Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, commonly known as "Just So Stories".
Just So Stories were written by Rudyard Kipling. Many of his stories were fanciful explanations of things that just don't have any other explanation at the moment. For example, he explains why the Rhinocerous has such wrinkled skin (it's from cake crumbs underneath it, which got there because .... don't ask). And how the Armadillo came to be invented from a hedgehog and a turtle. And how the Camel got his hump. Since these are children's fables, you might expect a somewhat fanciful explanation, drawn purely from imagination, in order to arrive at the known conclusion: the Rhino does indeed have wrinkled skin; the Armadillo has no other explanation for existing; the Camel does have a strange hump on its back.
This sort of story can be seen to crop up in rationalized premises, devised to support a situation that has no other readily obvious solution. Unfortunately, this has become a practice in what was previously perceived to be a "science": the biology of evolution. Evolution has become much, much more than a "scientific theory". It is now a worldview, defended vigorously and jealously by those with an Atheist, Secular Humanist agenda. This has come about because evolution is the keystone of support for Atheist philosophy; without it there would be virtually nothing for Atheists to grab ahold of, other than just outright weak-kneed denial. It is also the keystone for the secularist movement, which has its own morality, to eliminate traditional morality from being taught to children. There is no more vicious weaponry to be used than the weapon of evolution. It is the driver for culture change. It works by moulding minds into non-rational faculties.
When you hear any statement concerning evolution, ask yourself: Is this really verifiable in the context of the First Principles of Truth and Existence (see website for more on this)? Or is this a story, fabricated around a small group of bones, for example? Do the actual facts reflect the conclusion? Or is the conclusion actually moved off away from the small amount of facts, and in reality supported by conjecture, extrapolation, and fanciful story telling? Then tell me what you find: Rational Folks Want To Know!
Just So Stories were written by Rudyard Kipling. Many of his stories were fanciful explanations of things that just don't have any other explanation at the moment. For example, he explains why the Rhinocerous has such wrinkled skin (it's from cake crumbs underneath it, which got there because .... don't ask). And how the Armadillo came to be invented from a hedgehog and a turtle. And how the Camel got his hump. Since these are children's fables, you might expect a somewhat fanciful explanation, drawn purely from imagination, in order to arrive at the known conclusion: the Rhino does indeed have wrinkled skin; the Armadillo has no other explanation for existing; the Camel does have a strange hump on its back.
This sort of story can be seen to crop up in rationalized premises, devised to support a situation that has no other readily obvious solution. Unfortunately, this has become a practice in what was previously perceived to be a "science": the biology of evolution. Evolution has become much, much more than a "scientific theory". It is now a worldview, defended vigorously and jealously by those with an Atheist, Secular Humanist agenda. This has come about because evolution is the keystone of support for Atheist philosophy; without it there would be virtually nothing for Atheists to grab ahold of, other than just outright weak-kneed denial. It is also the keystone for the secularist movement, which has its own morality, to eliminate traditional morality from being taught to children. There is no more vicious weaponry to be used than the weapon of evolution. It is the driver for culture change. It works by moulding minds into non-rational faculties.
When you hear any statement concerning evolution, ask yourself: Is this really verifiable in the context of the First Principles of Truth and Existence (see website for more on this)? Or is this a story, fabricated around a small group of bones, for example? Do the actual facts reflect the conclusion? Or is the conclusion actually moved off away from the small amount of facts, and in reality supported by conjecture, extrapolation, and fanciful story telling? Then tell me what you find: Rational Folks Want To Know!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)