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!
1 comment:
"Is this really verifiable in the context of the First Principles of Truth and Existence? Or is this a story, fabricated around a small group of bones, for example? Do the actual facts reflect the conclusion?"
I've yet to hear anything purported to be a conclusion based on evolution that is not an extrapolation of sheer epic proportions, usually presented as "just what happened" by the presenter regardless of if the scientist made such a claim, and the scientist never questions the presenter on this (because why would they?). Oddly no one seems that bothered by this. Of course, its in no ones interest to be bothered by this unless they are being told that their thoughts are unacceptable to society because they believe in something other than evolution... and we can disregard those people because they're just crazy if they don't believe evolution (circular reasoning much?). This is the standard operating procedure in Britain nowadays.
Anyway, a more interesting point:
"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?"
Another test that could be added is "Is the conclusion directly related to the subject at hand, or is it primarily to do with some field unrelated to pure science, say government policy?", or "Is the argument being presented here primarily to support a political/secular/religious viewpoint, rather than to advance understanding?"
Its been the new fad for some considerable time now to interpret everything in evolutionary terms, usually with absolutely no science or evidence offered. Every media article seems to include a "this happens because of X invented history in which it evolved like this" and frankly this has the appearance of the establishment brainwashing us to believe it. To say this is to invite the label of 'conspiracy theorist' or 'alarmist' or 'fundamentalist'. Yet the media never questions the scientists, frequently embellishes what they actually say, profligately uses images and graphics of the man-2-ape kind which everyone seems to conveniently forget are not accurate (understatement of the century), doesn't talk about errors/accuracies/limitations/contrary results, presents scientists as unbiased/above reproach/without vested interests/infallible due to 'peer review'/infallible due to list of qualifications, and loves to interview left wing humanists and present them as the cuddly voice of reason.
Pointing this out to people leads them to question what your agenda is, rather than to question what the agenda of the media/scientific establishment/humanist might be. Go figure.
Experimental physicists tell a joke:
The experimental physicist goes to a theoretical physicist for some help interpreting his data. Theorist looks at graph and says "Ah, that is exactly where we'd expect a peak, here is why." -long complicated explanation follows. Half way through the experimentalist scratches his head and says, "Hang on this is upside down.". Theorist looks at newly reversed data "Ah, that is exactly where we'd expect a trough, here is why." -same long complicated explanation follows.
I've long thought the above anecdote applies amazingly well to evolution in all its guises. It doesn't really matter what data you have or even what quality it is, if you talk to a biologist you will find that it supports evolution...
Post a Comment