On the Necessity of Proving Things

[warpspeedpetey]

What WSP is saying isn’t silly, if you put it into its context of a *philosophical *discussion. If you look at it scientifically, then of course it would sound silly.

i think he knows full well this isnt about the practice of science, but the philosophy of science and epistemology, but he is hiding behind the idea that it isnt. cognitive dissonance.

 

[AlbertBall]

like i asked, how many degrees do you have? what are they in? how many years or semester credit hours do you have?

That all depends on how you look at it, you pick upi letters for all sorts these days. However as i said i am studing past degree level, in a field of science. I currently have a BSC(hon).

 

[AlbertBall]

simply pointing to a piece of material and claiming it is evidence without even knowing if it is genuine is silly.

Yep and claiming established evidence, accepted through out every seat of learning in the modern world is meaningless, is utterly ludicrous.

 

[tonyrey]

Unless he follows Luke 19:27…

Anyone can take a snippet out of its context. One principle of the interpretation of evidence you should bear in mind that a person’s teaching should be considered **as a whole **and not in segments chosen to suit what you want it to mean.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I may recall that this is a philosophical discussion as well and so you should show good offices to your brother WSP.

He only appears scientifically illiterate because he is looking at the situation philosophically and metaphysically. This might be the reason why you don’t understand what both he and I are talking about. You continue to look at things from a “purely” scientific perspective (though you are actually taking a philosophical position as well). Both he and I have considered the philosophical perspective of the topic at hand.

i would just like him to point out some area of science in which i have shown illiteracy?

all that talk is just bluster to cover the bare fact that he must admit at some point all events, and associated evidence are based on trust, if one doesnt witness the events themselves.

he cant support his argument, so he calls anyone who doesnt agree with him, names.

in this case he assumes we are less educated than him, its a bluff. nothing more.

 

[R_Daneel]

Anyone can take a snippet out of its context. One principle of the interpretation of evidence you should bear in mind that a person’s teaching should be considered **as a whole **and not in segments chosen to suit what you want it to mean.

Ho, hum. I heard that before. If the quotation is embarrasing, it is out of context or cannot be taken literally. What did the Church Lady say? “How conveeeenient!”

 

[AlbertBall]

but that said, courts dont allow evidence without provenance. the prosecutor will want proof that your evidence is actual evidence of the moonlanding occuring. which you havent yet been able to provide.

imagine that im the prosecutor. im simply pointing out th the only basis you have for saying that these things are evidence is ** trust** which you have repeatedly denied.

just as we trust ours for the Bibical events

see, you keep trying to deny a double standard, and we keep demonstrating that you are using one.

Nonsense, it comes down to credibility. Do courts of law accept murder weapons? OF COURSE THEY DO, can we be absolutely certain we have the murder weapon? NO. This is what we have been trying to explain to you FROM THE START. The moon landings all come from credible sources, so they can be accepted. The bible is NOT a credible source. This DOES NOT MEAN the bible in not true, but we CANNOT verify the validity of the bible. Where as WE CAN verify the validity of the moon landing. Hence why science accepts one AND NOT the other.

This does not make the bible wrong, but it DOES MAKE IT DIFFERENT. This is BASIC BASIC stuff.

Now you could have a defense in court that the murder weapon is a fake, but once the police have verified it and forensic scientists have verified that the DNA and finger prints match, in other words once the prosecution BUILDS A CASE (like i have explained to you). Your position that we can not claim absolute certainty is going to GET YOU NOWHERE, for we can prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Now honestly i really have had enough, there is only so many times one can hit there head off a brick wall before they get a sore head. :banghead:

 

[AlbertBall]

I may recall that this is a philosophical discussion as well and so you should show good offices to your brother WSP.

He only appears scientifically illiterate because he is looking at the situation philosophically and metaphysically. This might be the reason why you don’t understand what both he and I are talking about. You continue to look at things from a “purely” scientific perspective (though you are actually taking a philosophical position as well). Both he and I have considered the philosophical perspective of the topic at hand.

Good, because i have, always have been, and always will be talking about scientific evidence. I have been pointing out from my first post that the scientific evidence for the two events is NOT THE SAME. So i am glad we can agree on this, and let this absurd conversation rest.

 

[R_Daneel]

By whether they are prepared to suffer and die like Archbishop Romero…

One can only hope that he died as a happy person, with the ironclad belief that his martyrdom will be amply rewarded in heaven. Too bad that he is not allowed to come back and assure us about the fulfillment of his beliefs.

Are you denying that you believe life originated for no reason or purpose due to a fortuitous combination of molecules? And that the mind is powerful than inanimate matter?

Life is exactly that. A combination of molecules which allow it to sustain itself in a changing environment. So what? And I have no idea what the word “powerful” is supposed to mean here… If a nice, heavy rock would fall toward your head, no amount of “willpower” can deflect it.

If you were too proud to ask for help it shows you don’t believe in the principle of fraternity. It is the logical consequence of not being prepared to help others…

You are making assumptions again. I did not ask for help, because I made my own decision, and carried the consequences. That is what adulthood means. To take the responsibility with the freedom.

How can it be a distortion when you have stated that “I’m not my brother’s keeper”?

Non sequitur. I said that my principle is “to live and let live”. But, you know what? I am going to give you ammunition. Sometimes it is “let them die”. I certainly would not lift a finger to save those whom I despise. And I could bring up hypothetical examples for that.

“too bad” really shows you in your true light. It is a view that would not be accepted by any civilised person, implying as it does complete indifference to the suffering of others.

Actually, it is the sign of respect for those who consciously make wrong decisions. As the old joke goes: “What is the most frequent question (on the job) of those graduate students who studied old Latin and Greek philosophies and obtained their PhD in those subjects?” This is: “You want fries with that?” They made their own bed, they have to live with it.

It has worked when it has been put into practice - as in India.

India is still not a Christian country. It is still Hindu and Moslim. Strange that you have no Christian examples.

The Reign of Terror in France was based on **secular **morality which advocated violent revolution and the execution of priests, nuns and aristocrats.

Actually it was a violent response to the oppression of the people by those in power. I am pretty sure they would have preferred to petition for their grievances instead of violence, but how would I know? Remember the famous saying “… let them eat cake!”? The cake she referred to was not pastry, it was dump placed by the cows. No wonder there was a retribution. And you wish to put the blame for that to the Enlightement? Are you completely insane?

The Inquisition was based on a distortion of Christ’s teaching which has never been a doctrine of the Church.

How conveeeenient! It was perfomed by the Holy Catholic Church. And I am sure in those times the possible dissenters (if any) were smart enough to keep their mouth shut. Though I don’t think there were dissenters. After all the Catholic Church claimed that they were doing it for the benefit of the witches, by purging them of the influence of the devil. And when after all the tortures they “confessed”, they were given over to the temporal government, who did the final execution. Not that the temporal rulers had any chance to contradict the Church. They knew better. You know: There was a time when everyone believed in God, and the Catholic Church ruled supreme. It is called the Dark Ages.

How do you verify the right to life and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity?

These are concepts and ideas. Nice ones, too - in our opinion. But they are not facts of nature. We can verify that they are worthy concepts by comparing countries and societies where these ideas are upheld to those ones where they are not. And then, according to our preferences, we can judge whether they are truly preferable. And guess, what? There are societies where the people prefer a strong goverment, with limited freedom for the people, just because a strong government can provide better security. Each his own. I actually escaped a strong police state and emigrated to a free country. I voted with my feet. The fact is that had to live in abject poverty as the result of this decision. But it was my decision, and I am glad that I made it. I am pretty sure you will find a way to distort this, too, as you keep distorting everything I say. But that is no skin off my nose. You have to live with your attitude, not I. Thank God, if there is one.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yep and claiming established evidence, accepted through out every seat of learning in the modern world is meaningless, is utterly ludicrous.

you claim to be better educated than me, but then you make a basic mistake in critical thinking. this is a fallacy called an argument from authority.

such a well educated person shoulddnt be making such basic mistakes.

why are you dodging the question about your education? how many degress, years, or credit hours do you have, and what is the subject area?

i dont think you have impressive credentials, because people who do, generally dont brag about them.

so what are yours?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Nonsense, it comes down to credibility.

it seems you will do anything to avoid admitting that trust is involved. youve been repeating the same refuted arguments for dozens of posts now, you have already tried to mount a credibitilty defense.

Do courts of law accept murder weapons? OF COURSE THEY DO, can we be absolutely certain we have the murder weapon? NO.

and if they arent? they dont accept it. if a gun doesnt match a bullet exactly, not just closely, then it is thrown out as the murder weapon.

This is what we have been trying to explain to you FROM THE START. The moon landings all come from credible sources, so they can be accepted.

what credible sources are these? ive shown that every source you have used is suspect, do you have a new source?

The bible is NOT a credible source.

here is another exposition of the double standard, where in you simply assert that the moonlanding is credible, while Biblical events are not

what do you base this assertion on?

This DOES NOT MEAN the bible in not true, but we CANNOT verify the validity of the bible. Where as WE CAN verify the validity of the moon landing. Hence why science accepts one AND NOT the other. This does not make the bible wrong, but it DOES MAKE IT DIFFERENT. This is BASIC BASIC stuff.

what method do you verify the validity of the moonlanding? everything you have offered so far has been crushed, because you cant verify the provenance of the artifacts.

the exact same situation we are in. you have to trust at some point.

Now you could have a defense in court that the murder weapon is a fake, but once the police have verified it and forensic scientists have verified that the DNA and finger prints match, in other words once the prosecution BUILDS A CASE (like i have explained to you). Your position that we can not claim absolute certainty is going to GET YOU NOWHERE, for we can prove beyond reasonable doubt.

you have to prove that it is the gun, that it is the DNA, and that it is the correct fingerprints. none of which you hhave been able to do with the artifacts you think constitute the moonlanding.

no court accepts evidence of an unknown or even doubtful provenance, if you cannot gauruntee a chain of custody, you dont have anything but conjecture.

this is the exact problem that you have. only you ignore it and say its ok to accept anyway, but then point to th same problem for Biblical events, and say its not ok

a clear double standard of evidence.

Now honestly i really have had enough, there is only so many times one can hit there head off a brick wall before they get a sore head. :banghead:

you can simply admit the double standard, or you can admit that we are right and trust is what you must do to accept that any historical event you didnt witness happened.

 

[R_Daneel]

a clear double standard of evidence.

You know what? You can try and bring a lawsuits - about the moon landing, and about the virgin birth. You can get your “experts” to argue that they are equally supported. And see what happens. It is a strong possibility that it will be thrown out of court on account that it is frivolous. But maybe not. And when the dust settles, you will stand there with egg on your face. And rightfully so. Of course, afterwards you would give a press conference and declare to the laughing public that you just “won” that lawsuit. What a joke you are.

 

[tonyrey]

By whether they are prepared to suffer and die like Archbishop Romero…

He was not concerned about a reward but about the suffering of his people. Not everyone is dominated by his/her own interests…

Too bad that he is not allowed to come back and assure us about the fulfillment of his beliefs.

It wouldn’t make the slightest difference. Sceptics would say he was deluded…

Are you denying that you believe life originated for no reason or purpose due to a fortuitous combination of molecules? And that the mind is powerful than inanimate matter?

Life is exactly that.
Dogmatisn unbound! Exactly = no more and no less…

A combination of molecules which allow it to sustain itself in a changing environment.

But what organises and enables the molecules to form an entity with an urge to survive and a plasticity conspicuous by its absence in inanimate matter?

So what? And I have no idea what the word “powerful” is supposed to mean here… If a nice, heavy rock would fall toward your head, no amount of “willpower” can deflect it.

You obviously assume - like Goliath - that brute force is superior to intelligence. You also assume that existence is restricted to physical objects and ends with death. On what basis?

You are making assumptions again. I did not ask for help, because I made my own decision, and carried the consequences. That is what adulthood means. To take the responsibility with the freedom.

How do you obtain responsibility and freedom from biological machines? That is a most remarkable assumption … given that it would infringe the law of conservation of energy.
Surely something is wrong somewhere…

How can it be a distortion when you have stated that “I’m not my brother’s keeper”?

Non sequitur. I said that my principle is “to live and let live”. But, you know what? I am going to give you ammunition. Sometimes it is “let them die”.

When?

I certainly would not lift a finger to save those whom I despise. And I could bring up hypothetical examples for that.

Even more than an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth! To despise is to consider yourself far superior to those you despise. Judging from your tone you would probably let them die in agony without the slightest compunction… You have not explained why you despise some people so much. It suggests that it is not because of your opinions but your convictions and certainties. What are they? (This is where we really get down to brass tacks with regard to evidence and proof…)

“too bad” really shows you in your true light. It is a view that would not be accepted by any civilised person, implying as it does complete indifference to the suffering of others.

Actually, it is the sign of respect for those who consciously make wrong decisions. As the old joke goes: “What is the most frequent question (on the job) of those graduate students who studied old Latin and Greek philosophies and obtained their PhD in those subjects?” This is: “You want fries with that?” They made their own bed, they have to live with it.

You seem to believe that we all get what we deserve as far as our choices and decisions are concerned.

It has worked when it has been put into practice - as in India.

Strange that you have no Christian examples.

There are plenty but India is the most impressive example because it is so vast. You would not have predicted Gandhi’s success given your contempt for Christ’s teaching. How do you think Christianity spread throughout the world? By the use of force? The followers of Christ were laughed at and mocked by the Jews, Romans, Greeks and pagans alike but they had a far greater impact on history than their torturers and executioners.

 

[tonyrey]

The Reign of Terror in France was based on secular morality which advocated violent revolution and the execution of priests, nuns and aristocrats.

Actually it was a violent response to the oppression of the people by those in power. I am pretty sure they would have preferred to petition for their grievances instead of violence, but how would I know? Remember the famous saying “… let them eat cake!”? The cake she referred to was not pastry, it was dump placed by the cows. No wonder there was a retribution. And you wish to put the blame for that to the Enlightement? Are you completely insane?

Insanity is the hallmark of those who are utterly convinced that everything which is beautiful and precious in the universe has emerged for no reason or purpose whatsoever from atomic particles which lack hindsight, insight, foresight, feeling, aesthetic appreciation, moral values or self-control…

You obviously haven’t studied the causes of the French Revolution if you think it was merely a spontaneous, disorganised uprising with no ideological organisation or historical background. Who were the leaders? Ignorant peasants?

The Inquisition was based on a distortion of Christ’s teaching which has never been a doctrine of the Church.

It was perfomed by the Holy Catholic Church…There was a time when everyone believed in God, and the Catholic Church ruled supreme. It is called the Dark Ages.

Further distortion of the truth. During the Dark Ages it was the Church which preserved the heritage of Greek and Roman knowledge and culture, established the first universities, schools, hospitals, orphanages and hospices, and then promoted the development of science and international law. Science was and is based on the belief that the universe is intelligible and that human beings have the power to grasp and comprehend its laws. Where there has been no philosophical and theological background no such progress has occurred.

How do you verify the right to life and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity?

These are concepts and ideas. Nice ones, too - in our opinion. But they are not facts of nature.
Opinions are an inadequate foundation for human rights and moral principles - as we see contemporary society with its millions of abortions and flagrant disregard for human life .

We can verify that they are worthy concepts by comparing countries and societies where these ideas are upheld to those ones where they are not. And then, according to our preferences, we can judge whether they are truly preferable.

Who are “we”? The majority? Scientists, politicians or those in power with vested interests?

And guess, what? There are societies where the people prefer a strong goverment, with limited freedom for the people, just because a strong government can provide better security. Each his own. I actually escaped a strong police state and emigrated to a free country. I voted with my feet. The fact is that had to live in abject poverty as the result of this decision. But it was my decision, and I am glad that I made it. I am pretty sure you will find a way to distort this, too, as you keep distorting everything I say.

“everything”! Please provide evidence of your claim…

Thank God, if there is one.

It must be frustrating to be unable to express gratitude… You value freedom more than security yet you regard it as nothing more than a nice concept! Don’t you think freedom is more important than “a fact of nature” - assuming that it is not a fact of any description… ?
(Do you regard that as a distortion of what you have said? If so why?)

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You know what? You can try and bring a lawsuits - about the moon landing, and about the virgin birth. You can get your “experts” to argue that they are equally supported. And see what happens. It is a strong possibility that it will be thrown out of court on account that it is frivolous. But maybe not. And when the dust settles, you will stand there with egg on your face.And rightfully so. Of course, afterwards you would give a press conference and declare to the laughing public that you just “won” that lawsuit.

is this yet another fallacious appeal to authority? as though you can show your argument is correct because you assert that a court would side with you and not me?

as you havent been able to support the argument so far, on what basis do you think an impartial judge would would side with you?

not only is this a logical fallacy, its based on an insupportable assertion, that assumes the truth of an argument you have lost!

and if you havent lost it then you are implying that you have an argument that we have not yet crushed, if so lets hear it.

What a joke you are.

is this the argument of a well educated mathematician? is this the argummet of a critical thinker?

if your down to ad homs, and arent even going to make a pretense of actually being able to support your argument.

do you care to admit that we are right and thats that?

 

[R_Daneel]

He was not concerned about a reward but about the suffering of his people. Not everyone is dominated by his/her own interests…

Were you there and peeked into his thoughts?

It wouldn’t make the slightest difference. Sceptics would say he was deluded…

How do you know that?

But what organises and enables the molecules to form an entity with an urge to survive and a plasticity conspicuous by its absence in inanimate matter?

Ever heard of emerging attributes? You could just as well ask: “what made the water wet, when none of its parts are wet”? Irrelevant questions.

You obviously assume - like Goliath - that brute force is superior to intelligence. You also assume that existence is restricted to physical objects and ends with death. On what basis?

Reality and the lack of any evidence to the contrary.

How do you obtain responsibility and freedom from biological machines? That is a most remarkable assumption … given that it would infringe the law of conservation of energy.
Surely something is wrong somewhere…

Yes, there is. In your understanding. None of that has the slightest impact on the conservation of energy. What you might have wanted to say that such self-organizing events seem to violate the second law of theromdynamics (law of growing entropy). I am glad you did not, because that would reveal you lack of understanding.

Even more than an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth! To despise is to consider yourself far superior to those you despise. Judging from your tone you would probably let them die in agony without the slightest compunction… You have not explained why you despise some people so much. It suggests that it is not because of your opinions but your convictions and certainties. What are they? (This is where we really get down to brass tacks with regard to evidence and proof…)

The answer is much simpler. Because of their behavior. I do not wish well to those who hurt others (not just me and my loved ones, but anyone and everyone. Even you.)

You seem to believe that we all get what we deserve as far as our choices and decisions are concerned.

You keep on making assumptions about my thoughts and beliefs. Actually, I believe the exact opposite. Sometimes we get what we deserve, and sometimes we do not. Which is a sign that there is no just and benevolent deity watching over us.

There are plenty but India is the most impressive example because it is so vast. You would not have predicted Gandhi’s success given your contempt for Christ’s teaching. How do you think Christianity spread throughout the world? By the use of force?

Ever heard of the Conquistadores?

The followers of Christ were laughed at and mocked by the Jews, Romans, Greeks and pagans alike but they had a far greater impact on history than their torturers and executioners.

So what? A huge hydrogen bomb would make even bigger impact.

 

[Image_of_God]

Good, because i have, always have been, and always will be talking about scientific evidence. I have been pointing out from my first post that the scientific evidence for the two events is NOT THE SAME. So i am glad we can agree on this, and let this absurd conversation rest.

I think you misunderstood me. Evidence can be looked at in a variety of ways. It can be looked at scientifically or philosophically, etc. If you look at the topic at hand in a purely scientific manner, then of course you will think the evidence is not the same. But if you look at the evidence philosophically, and get the bigger picture, you will realize that evidence is meaningless without an interpreter of that evidence. Evidence never has spoken for itself. In every case, it is necessary for someone to put an interpretation on that evidence. No wonder that various scientific theories have come out of the same evidence.

You have, for some reason, avoided the post (or at least avoided addressing it) where I note your contradiction on absolute certainty. You claimed that such a thing doesn’t exist. Yet, at the same time, you claim that the moonlanding happened with absolute certainty. If you reject the idea of absolute certainty, then the moonlanding did not happen for certain and you believe it did.

 

[Image_of_God]

i would just like him to point out some area of science in which i have shown illiteracy?

all that talk is just bluster to cover the bare fact that he must admit at some point all events, and associated evidence are based on trust, if one doesnt witness the events themselves.

he cant support his argument, so he calls anyone who doesnt agree with him, names.

in this case he assumes we are less educated than him, its a bluff. nothing more.

We should do our best, with the grace of the Most High, to overlook his attacks. If we fail to do so, this discussion will descend from the noble discourse “on the necessity of proving things” into the mud of vicious fighting and namecalling which will lead no one to the beauty of the truth. Do not accept his invitation. Our kindly rejection of it is part of our persuasion.

 

[R_Daneel]

Insanity is the hallmark of those who are utterly convinced that everything which is beautiful and precious in the universe has emerged for no reason or purpose whatsoever from atomic particles which lack hindsight, insight, foresight, feeling, aesthetic appreciation, moral values or self-control…

Beauty is a subjective assessment. The scent of a flower is disgusting to a dog. The smell that dogs find “pleasurable” is quite a stink to us. One person may think that the Nibelung Ring is the most beautiful music ever, for others it is cacophony. Some love Picasso’s pictures, others hate it.

Further distortion of the truth. During the Dark Ages it was the Church which preserved the heritage of Greek and Roman knowledge and culture, established the first universities, schools, hospitals, orphanages and hospices, and then promoted the development of science and international law. Science was and is based on the belief that the universe is intelligible and that human beings have the power to grasp and comprehend its laws. Where there has been no philosophical and theological background no such progress has occurred.

Partially true and not relevant. You seem to have glossed over the atrocities of the Inquisition, somehow.

Opinions are an inadequate foundation for human rights and moral principles - as we see contemporary society with its millions of abortions and flagrant disregard for human life .

Only in your opinion.

“everything”! Please provide evidence of your claim…

All they have to do is read your posts.

It must be frustrating to be unable to express gratitude… You value freedom more than security yet you regard it as nothing more than a nice concept! Don’t you think freedom is more important than “a fact of nature” - assuming that it is not a fact of any description… ?

False dichotomy. I do value freedom over security. But that has nothing to do with my regard for the facts of nature.

(Do you regard that as a distortion of what you have said? If so why?)

I regard it as total misunderstanding.

 

[Image_of_God]

Beauty is a subjective assessment. The scent of a flower is disgusting to a dog. The smell that dogs find “pleasurable” is quite a stink to us. One person may think that the Nibelung Ring is the most beautiful music ever, for others it is cacophony. Some love Picasso’s pictures, others hate it.

If I may ask: What at all is objective about your assessment? Saying that Beauty is a subjective assessment might very well be your own subjective assessment. Either way, we must claim that objectivity begins somewhere.

Both you and tonyrey’s definition of Beauty might very well be different.