GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-21-2013, 10:18   #851
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
There is only an argument for the possibility. Similarly, there is only an argument for the possibility of abiogenesis.
The fact that various chemicals under certain conditions result in protobionts isn't evidence?

I mean, sure, it hasn't been shown that's actually what happened. But you don't consider that a reason to consider that it's more probable a natural process occurred, even if that particular reaction wasn't involved, than that a natural process did not occur?

Especially given that's not the only potential piece of a natural process that's been shown *can* happen in a lab?
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-21-2013 at 10:22..
void * is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 10:36   #852
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,211


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
I'm not claiming it's *always* a this or that thing. I asked, is all.



So take the example on the wikipedia page. I suspect it's a bit simplified for illustrative purposes, but let's take it.

Basically, they're running through, gathering what data they can gather, making a probability assessment, and that probability assessment changes as they do more tests and gather more data. It appears that the probabilities are sometimes used to determine what other tests to do, or what data to gather.

The final assessment in the example ends up being something like a 97% probability of primary hyperthyroidism, a 0.7% chance it's cancer, a 0.6% chance it's any other condition, and a 1.6% chance there's no disease whatsoever.

Does the doctor say 'well, there's still some uncertainty, we don't know what it is', or does the doctor take some action based on what he currently assesses as the most probable cause?

Basically, are you ever in a situation where you're confident enough to take actions based on those probability assessments even though you are *fully* aware you do not conclusively know what condition the patient has with 100% certainty?

If you have, I suspect you don't see that as religious - and that's really all I'm doing. I am fully aware I can't prove creation didn't happen. It's not a falsifiable posit, nobody can prove it. However, my current probability assessment is that a natural process is more likely, there's some evidence showing that various things required for it can chemically happen, even though it can't be shown right now that they *did* happen, and there have historically been 'deity did it vs. natural process' situations that have turned out to be natural processes, whereas 'deity did it' hasn't reasonably been shown. So I go with that - if there's some evidence that materially changes those probabilities, I'll change them, and go with that instead.
I was afraid of that. The correct answer is: It depends. Which might sound like a dodge, but it's not. You are correct that the scenario is oversimplified for explanatory reasons, and a lot of information needed to decide what to actually do is missing. Review of systems, vital signs, past medical history, vital signs, meds etc.

You can state generally how you would go about treating an average patient without any comorbidities, allergies or mediacation issues, but not what to do for that specific patient. One tip though, if you even give the patient an inkling that a cancer is in the differential diagnosis, you'd better have a solid plan for how you plan to rule that out. Patients hate the "C" word.

The thing that makes this less applicable to the ID vs Abiogenesis issue is that you are evaluating data in real time, and can observe changes in a fairly well describe system based on your actions.

Abiogenesis or ID? We can see what happened after. Our ability to look back at life before our own existance is very limited.

What exact shade of color were the upper arms of a T-Rex?
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-21-2013, 10:42   #853
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
The thing that makes this less applicable to the ID vs Abiogenesis issue is that you are evaluating data in real time, and can observe changes in a fairly well describe system based on your actions.
Why do you consider it 'less applicable' rather than just 'slower'?

It's harder to get data, you have to show a whole lot more when you're talking about something that may have happened in the past rather than something that you're directly observing. So I expect it to be a good long while before there's even an abiogenesis model that is scientifically accepted, if there ever is. There's currently a whole pile of different competing models, none of which has met the bar, but some of which show promise, to greater or lesser degrees.

But why do you consider using an approach like that to be less applicable? It's basically the same thing, just a lot slower, and we're not trying to find and treat a condition, but just gain knowledge.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-21-2013 at 10:48..
void * is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 10:45   #854
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
One tip though, if you even give the patient an inkling that a cancer is in the differential diagnosis, you'd better have a solid plan for how you plan to rule that out. Patients hate the "C" word.
I wouldn't expect that you'd have to necessarily tell the patient all of the potentials. Especially when there's a big scary potential condition, or the patient doesn't understand that anything in particular being a potential condition doesn't mean they have that potential condition. I wouldn't even necessarily expect the patient have to be involved in every single step of such a diagnosis. It would be reasonable to draw blood once and subject it to multiple tests, for instance, right? (I wouldn't expect that you'd need to poke the patient more than once if you know you need enough to run 5 tests, I'd expect the blood draw would just say 'we need this much', with 'this much' being the minimum needed for each test plus some buffer, and it would be split into whatever vials needed, possibly at the time of the draw, but I suppose I could be wrong. I think I vaguely remember a kind of needle that could be put in once and draw into separate containers, but it's been a while since I've had blood drawn. Edit: technically that wouldn't have been a 'kind of needle', other than being a needle with some sort of valve on the end, if I'm remembering right).

Are blood draws kept for some period of time so additional tests can be performed if needed without having to pull the patient in and get more blood? (I don't know whether this is done or not, I can see reasons to not do that as well, such as potential contamination or difficulties in temporary storage, as well as not knowing how much you'd potentially need so not being able to reasonably pick a default amount to pull for extra potential tests - I'm just asking).
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-21-2013 at 11:11..
void * is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 11:25   #855
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
So let's take a concrete example. The duck on my shoulder.

There are two alternatives - the duck exists, or the duck does not exist.

Based on current data (basically, the fact that I freely admit it's a made up example, and the fact that even though it's a made up example, there's some small probability I was correct when I chose the description of the duck), the probability the duck exists is an infinitesimal that represents the probability that I was randomly correct. Let's call that infinitesimal P(d) (for 'probability duck'. The probability the duck does *not* exist is 1 - P(d). Since we've assessed, based on current data, that P(d) is very, very small, we can state that 1 - P(d) is a value that is very, very close to 1 (without even being able to compute a specific value for P(d) - we don't need to assign an actual value, we just need to know it's very, very small, and we do, just through the fact that there's an infinite number of made up scenarios that could be true)

Based on that, and lacking further information, I think it's entirely reasonable to consider the posit that such a duck exists as probably false, to the point of treating it as though it were false, even though I know I can't prove that it actually is false (since it is not falsifiable) - at least until there's some kind of evidence for the duck. At which point, I'd change my probability assessment based on that data. I wouldn't say it's impossible for there to be such a duck, but I'm fine with saying I don't believe it.

What's the problem with approaching pretty much everything (except for abstract concepts that do not require a relation to reality, such as pure mathematics or pure logic, and thus can be formally proven), in a like manner?
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-21-2013 at 11:40..
void * is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 12:35   #856
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,211


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
The fact that various chemicals under certain conditions result in protobionts isn't evidence?

I mean, sure, it hasn't been shown that's actually what happened. But you don't consider that a reason to consider that it's more probable a natural process occurred, even if that particular reaction wasn't involved, than that a natural process did not occur?

Especially given that's not the only potential piece of a natural process that's been shown *can* happen in a lab?
Well, that's one side of the argument. A amino acid isn't even a full protein, and a multitude of complex proteins, lipids and electrolytes have to be joined into actual structures that must act in conjunction with relatively distant structures. Even simple structures within a cell aren't so simple when you look really close.

Both sides have their positions. I'm waiting to see who wins.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-21-2013, 12:40   #857
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
A amino acid isn't even a full protein
A protobiont is more than just an amino acid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
A protobiont is an aggregate of abiotically produced organic molecules surrounded by a membrane or a membrane-like structure. Protobionts exhibit some of the properties associated with life, including simple reproduction, metabolism and excitability, as well as the maintenance of an internal chemical environment different from that of their surroundings.

...

Nanobes or nanobacteria, being too small to be functional living organisms, may be an example of naturally occurring protobionts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Both sides have their positions. I'm waiting to see who wins.
One position is argument. The other position is argument backed by data showing that particular pieces that have to have happened (edit: by this I mean 'had to have happened if that argument were true', not that they objectively had to have happened) could in fact have happened under specific, describable, known conditions. Do you really not think that's a basis for saying 'Hey, right now, it looks like more probable that the second occurred than the first. It might not really be what happened, and there's a whole lot more data that's needed, but it looks like it's probably the case, and at least it's something we can actually investigate'?
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-21-2013 at 13:00..
void * is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 13:07   #858
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,211


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
So let's take a concrete example. The duck on my shoulder.

There are two alternatives - the duck exists, or the duck does not exist.

Based on current data (basically, the fact that I freely admit it's a made up example, and the fact that even though it's a made up example, there's some small probability I was correct when I chose the description of the duck), the probability the duck exists is an infinitesimal that represents the probability that I was randomly correct. Let's call that infinitesimal P(d) (for 'probability duck'. The probability the duck does *not* exist is 1 - P(d). Since we've assessed, based on current data, that P(d) is very, very small, we can state that 1 - P(d) is a value that is very, very close to 1 (without even being able to compute a specific value for P(d) - we don't need to assign an actual value, we just need to know it's very, very small, and we do, just through the fact that there's an infinite number of made up scenarios that could be true)

Based on that, and lacking further information, I think it's entirely reasonable to consider the posit that such a duck exists as probably false, to the point of treating it as though it were false, even though I know I can't prove that it actually is false (since it is not falsifiable) - at least until there's some kind of evidence for the duck. At which point, I'd change my probability assessment based on that data. I wouldn't say it's impossible for there to be such a duck, but I'm fine with saying I don't believe it.

What's the problem with approaching pretty much everything (except for abstract concepts that do not require a relation to reality, such as pure mathematics or pure logic, and thus can be formally proven), in a like manner?
Based on current data, I would have to hold the position that young ace every right to believe in the duck on your shoulder and ascribe any powers to your duck as you would like. You can create special days to pay homage to your duck and study how to become a better friend/subject of your duck in any way that you would like as long as it hurts nonone else. Kind of the same way I approach all other religious stories. I actually yhink the first amendment to the COTUS is a pretty good rule to go by.

I know that like the FSM, invisible dragons in garages, unicorns and fairies that have been previously discussed, I am supposed to declare your duck nonexistent and then you are supposed to argue that I need to apply the same logic to all deities.

I have a tolerant approach to all religions, including atheism. People have a right to believe what they want to believe. If they are wrong, that may be a problem for them or not.

There is no need for me to have an opinion about your duck. Just like Zeus, Shiva or Allah, I've not met your duck. If it wishes to show itself to me, I'll worry about it then.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-21-2013, 13:10   #859
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Based on current data, I would have to hold the position that young ace every right to believe in the duck on your shoulder and ascribe any powers to your duck as you would like.
Based on your response, I would have to hold the position that you didn't even bother to read my post, since it implies that I am attempting to hold a position both that I do not hold, and that I explicitly contradicted holding. Which has the not unexpected effect of rendering your response as nonsense in the context of what I actually wrote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I am supposed to declare your duck nonexistent and then you are supposed to argue that I need to apply the same logic to all deities.
Now, now - don't misrepresent. I never said you were *supposed* to claim my duck was nonexistent. I claimed that you *did* claim my duck was nonexistent.

Which, in fact, you did.

I don't think you're *supposed* to claim the duck does not exist. I'd much prefer you just admit it's reasonable to provisionally hold that the duck probably does not exist, on the basis that the only reason that a positive assertion the duck does *not* exist is not logically valid, is an unfalsifiable, and infinitesimal, probability that it's actually true.

You don't want to do that, though. You seem to be fine with actually contradicting yourself, as long as nobody points it out. Oh well.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-21-2013 at 13:26..
void * is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 13:18   #860
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,211


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
A protobiont is more than just an amino acid.





One position is argument. The other position is argument backed by data showing that particular pieces that have to have happened (edit: by this I mean 'had to have happened if that argument were true', not that they objectively had to have happened) could in fact have happened under specific, describable, known conditions. Do you really not think that's a basis for saying 'Hey, right now, it looks like more probable that the second occurred than the first. It might not really be what happened, and there's a whole lot more data that's needed, but it looks like it's probably the case, and at least it's something we can actually investigate'?
Both sides claim evidence, usually rapidly dismissing the evidence claimed by the other side.

http://www.discovery.org/a/9761


I get it. If one version is proven correct, the other side will have an awful lot to reevaluate, and are resistant to consider the other sides merits.

I'm waiting until its settled to pick sides. Both are possible. Even with that heavy burden of considering both are possible, I still picked the ravioli and chicken for lunch without giving any consideration at all of whether the first living cell on earth was made or occurred spontaneously.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-21-2013, 13:18   #861
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,378


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Now, now - don't misrepresent. I never said you were *supposed* to claim my duck was nonexistent. I claimed that you *did* claim my duck was nonexistent.

Which, in fact, you did.
A quick check of the record... Yep, he did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
He started his hypothetical with a ridiculously false premise.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."
Geko45 is online now  
Old 02-21-2013, 13:33   #862
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Both sides claim evidence, usually rapidly dismissing the evidence claimed by the other side.
This gets back to self verification.

I've taken a look at some of the reasons that creationists claim things cannot be true. What I see is, a lot of positive creationist claims that when I actually have the ability to attempt to verify them, it turns out I can falsify many of the claims, directly.

I've also taken a look at models of abiogenesis. I see a lot of 'well, this could be true', 'this is suggestive', and a lot of admission that it's not all there yet.

Even given that I don't necessarily have the knowledge to verify the chemistry at hand, there's a whole lot of evidence one party (the creationists) are trying to set it various things as a false dichotomy and then make claims like 'abiogenesis can't be true! Creation!', and there's a whole lot of evidence that another party (the scientists) are trying to actually figure stuff out.

That weighs into a probability function, too.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-21-2013 at 13:35..
void * is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 14:01   #863
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,211


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Based on your response, I would have to hold the position that you didn't even bother to read my post, since it implies that I am attempting to hold a position both that I do not hold, and that I explicitly contradicted holding. Which has the not unexpected effect of rendering your response as nonsense in the context of what I actually wrote.



Now, now - don't misrepresent. I never said you were *supposed* to claim my duck was nonexistent. I claimed that you *did* claim my duck was nonexistent.

Which, in fact, you did. As far as what logic you need to apply, I don't much care as long as you're *consistent*. Which you were not.

I don't think you're *supposed* to claim the duck does not exist. I'd much prefer you just admit it's reasonable to provisionally hold that the duck probably does not exist, on the basis that the only reason we can't positively assert the duck does *not* exist is an unfalsifiable, and infinitesimal, probability that it's actually true.

You don't want to do that, though. Oh well.
Based on my response, I'd like to have a few choice words with the guys responsible for the iPhone predictive text.

That first line should have read "you have", not "young ace".

I did claim your duck was nonexistent, which may have had something to do with the fact that you've stated you don't believe in it either.

After a little reconsideration, I've come to the conclusion that was wrong of me. If you want to claim there is a duck on your shoulder, and that makes you happy, who am I to crush your chance at happiness.

I have no problem with your duck. Be well.


As far as consistency goes, that is my position on most theistic religions.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-21-2013, 14:10   #864
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,211


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
This gets back to self verification.

I've taken a look at some of the reasons that creationists claim things cannot be true. What I see is, a lot of positive creationist claims that when I actually have the ability to attempt to verify them, it turns out I can falsify many of the claims, directly.

I've also taken a look at models of abiogenesis. I see a lot of 'well, this could be true', 'this is suggestive', and a lot of admission that it's not all there yet.

Even given that I don't necessarily have the knowledge to verify the chemistry at hand, there's a whole lot of evidence one party (the creationists) are trying to set it various things as a false dichotomy and then make claims like 'abiogenesis can't be true! Creation!', and there's a whole lot of evidence that another party (the scientists) are trying to actually figure stuff out.

That weighs into a probability function, too.
Some have a hard time getting this, but here is my take on it. I've seen both sides "evidence" and arguments. I have a hard time believing either premise. A god making life is rather hard to believe. It's equally hard to believe that such a complex structure just coalesced on its own. Now, barring extraterrestrial seeding, which still gets you back to how was that life started.... Those are the only two obvious options left. Both are very hard to buy into for me, but if those are the two choices, it has to be one or the other. Both are equally remote possibilities. So I will just wait until some convincing evidence comes along.

I can see the natural attraction between the two for theists and atheists, because if either is wrong about that one little point, the rest of their belief system doesn't make much sense.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-21-2013 at 14:11..
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-21-2013, 16:28   #865
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,547
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
There are two alternatives - the duck exists, or the duck does not exist.
Well, if it was Schrödinger's duck, the duck could be thought to... oh, never mind.
ArtificialGrape is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 16:42   #866
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,211


Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
Well, if it was Schrödinger's duck, the duck could be thought to... oh, never mind.
Verschränkung
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-21-2013, 17:26   #867
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Some have a hard time getting this, but here is my take on it. I've seen both sides "evidence" and arguments. I have a hard time believing either premise.
Sure, and that's fine. I have no issue with that whatsoever.

That doesn't explain why you seem to fail to recognize that it's ok to reject unfalsifiable premises for rational reasons - but only in particular circumstances.

Take the differential diagnosis we talked about earlier. Does the fact that there's an 'unknown condition' bucket stop anybody from using it? I wouldn't expect so. That 'unknown condition' could be supernatural - perhaps a deity and his nemesis are deciding to test the faith of a particular person and afflicting them with symptoms through supernatural means. Should that mere possibility stop a doctor from saying 'Hey, this works for a lot of things ... let's run with it' and taking the assumption that it's not a supernatural condition? I say no, it should not. I would *hope* you agree. I would also expect that doctors aren't sitting there going 'well maybe a deity did it!'.

So why should the mere possibility that we were created, and somoene decides 'hey, this science stuff has worked for a lot of stuff - let's run with that' (and likewise taking the necessary assumption of methodological naturalism) make them religious?
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-21-2013 at 17:29..
void * is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 17:33   #868
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I did claim your duck was nonexistent, which may have had something to do with the fact that you've stated you don't believe in it either.
I claimed I didn't believe in it, sure. I think I may have made that claim *after* you claimed it was false. I should probably check that. Yep, checked - it was in my first post on the duck - so I was wrong about thinking you claimed it after (see how that works? check - change your mind ...) - but still, you stated 'false', not 'well, you don't believe it, so I've got not reason to either'.

Quote:
After a little reconsideration, I've come to the conclusion that was wrong of me. If you want to claim there is a duck on your shoulder, and that makes you happy, who am I to crush your chance at happiness.
Again, more misrepresentation.

Quote:
As far as consistency goes, that is my position on most theistic religions.
Most? Which ones do you have a different position on, and why?
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-21-2013 at 17:39..
void * is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 19:30   #869
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,211


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
I claimed I didn't believe in it, sure. I think I may have made that claim *after* you claimed it was false. I should probably check that. Yep, checked - it was in my first post on the duck - so I was wrong about thinking you claimed it after (see how that works? check - change your mind ...) - but still, you stated 'false', not 'well, you don't believe it, so I've got not reason to either'.



Again, more misrepresentation.



Most? Which ones do you have a different position on, and why?
Your duck, keep it or toss it at your own discretion. No big deal from me one way or the other.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-21-2013, 19:39   #870
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,211


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Sure, and that's fine. I have no issue with that whatsoever.

That doesn't explain why you seem to fail to recognize that it's ok to reject unfalsifiable premises for rational reasons - but only in particular circumstances.
It's OK to withhold judgement on certain issues. Religious beliefs tend to lead some one way or the other. Is that not evident?

Quote:
Take the differential diagnosis we talked about earlier. Does the fact that there's an 'unknown condition' bucket stop anybody from using it? I wouldn't expect so. That 'unknown condition' could be supernatural - perhaps a deity and his nemesis are deciding to test the faith of a particular person and afflicting them with symptoms through supernatural means. Should that mere possibility stop a doctor from saying 'Hey, this works for a lot of things ... let's run with it' and taking the assumption that it's not a supernatural condition? I say no, it should not. I would *hope* you agree. I would also expect that doctors aren't sitting there going 'well maybe a deity did it!'.
As I have pointed out previously, the medical analogies from laymen fail badly. This one fails miserably.
I work with physicians of many different faiths, atheists, christians, muslims, jews, hindu's, and I can't remember a single one in 27 years in 22 countries claiming a supernatural etiology for a disease. I guess your pretend problem is at least possible, but I've never witnessed it. Maybe it's not worth worrying about at all?????


Quote:

So why should the mere possibility that we were created, and somoene decides 'hey, this science stuff has worked for a lot of stuff - let's run with that' (and likewise taking the necessary assumption of methodological naturalism) make them religious?

Faith. It is there, whether you admit to seeing it or not. Some believe in arduous ways, whether you admit to seeing it or not.

Evangelical Atheists exist, in higher numbers than in the wild here.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-21-2013, 21:16   #871
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It's OK to withhold judgement on certain issues. Religious beliefs tend to lead some one way or the other. Is that not evident?
I already said it's fine to withhold judgement if you like. Let me repeat myself ...

That doesn't explain why you seem to fail to recognize that it's ok to reject unfalsifiable premises for rational reasons - but only in particular circumstances.

Sure, withhold judgment if you want. Don't demand everyone who isn't has to be religious when they have rational reasons for *not* doing so - especially when you're doing the exact same thing they are doing in analogous circumstance A.


Quote:
As I have pointed out previously, the medical analogies from laymen fail badly. This one fails miserably.
Oh really? Then why ...
Quote:
I work with physicians of many different faiths, atheists, christians, muslims, jews, hindu's, and I can't remember a single one in 27 years in 22 countries claiming a supernatural etiology for a disease.
... is what you write next exactly the point behind the analogy? Nobody's seen it. Yet nobody can prove it won't happen, and you apparently didn't run around demanding all those doctors consider a supernatural cause.

Quote:
I guess your pretend problem is at least possible, but I've never witnessed it. Maybe it's not worth worrying about at all?????
You do realize that my 'pretend problem' is the story of Job with a doctor thrown in, don't you? It was apparently worth putting in the holy book of a major religion.

You appear to be just fine with people not considering supernatural causes when diagnosing patients, but not when considering abiogenesis. Your inconsistency is showing again ...

Creationism is an unknown that cannot ever be a known. If it's ever contradicted through evidence, if tomorrow someone came with overwhelming evidence for it being a natural process, someone would be able to say 'ok, well, that's how the creator did it'. Why should *anyone* have to consider that as equivalent to potential explanations that are actually falsifiable, when we don't demand that doctors consider supernatural causes as equivalent to actually falsifiable potential conditions?
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-22-2013 at 01:52..
void * is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 21:37   #872
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,378


Doc's position is hopelessly internally inconsistent, but he will never openly acknowledge it as such. To do so would challenge the worldview that he clings to with ardor and faith.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 02-21-2013 at 21:41..
Geko45 is online now  
Old 02-21-2013, 22:11   #873
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Both sides claim evidence, usually rapidly dismissing the evidence claimed by the other side.

http://www.discovery.org/a/9761


I get it. If one version is proven correct, the other side will have an awful lot to reevaluate, and are resistant to consider the other sides merits.

I'm waiting until its settled to pick sides. Both are possible. Even with that heavy burden of considering both are possible, I still picked the ravioli and chicken for lunch without giving any consideration at all of whether the first living cell on earth was made or occurred spontaneously.
So as I suspected previously, your cited evidence for intelligent design is "this seems too complicated. I don't understand how it could be." You later actually say "It's equally hard to believe that such a complex structure just coalesced on its own."

That's a logical fallacy.

That you reject the evidence indicating natural processes might result in life does not mean there is no evidence natural processes might result in life; is the only reason you reject such evidence "this seems too complicated. I don't understand how it could be"? Is the only evidence for intelligent design an argument to ignorance?
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 04:40   #874
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,211


Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
So as I suspected previously, your cited evidence for intelligent design is "this seems too complicated. I don't understand how it could be." You later actually say "It's equally hard to believe that such a complex structure just coalesced on its own."

That's a logical fallacy.

That you reject the evidence indicating natural processes might result in life does not mean there is no evidence natural processes might result in life; is the only reason you reject such evidence "this seems too complicated. I don't understand how it could be"? Is the only evidence for intelligent design an argument to ignorance?
Well, you can pretend its a logical fallacy if you need to. The fact is, when you stumble upon a highly organized structure that works very well, but would not work at all with just one of several slight differences, like a pickup truck, but a lot more complex than that, it's reasonable to at least consider that it is possible that it was designed to be that way. That's not proof, and neither are carefully controlled experients in a lab that result in "building blocks". In fact, if life is ever fully created in the lab, it proves that life can be created.

I do understand the need for each side to believe a certain way about the whole ID vs Abiogenesis debate.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-22-2013 at 04:52..
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-22-2013, 04:49   #875
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,211


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
I already said it's fine to withhold judgement if you like. Let me repeat myself ...

That doesn't explain why you seem to fail to recognize that it's ok to reject unfalsifiable premises for rational reasons - but only in particular circumstances.

Sure, withhold judgment if you want. Don't demand everyone who isn't has to be religious when they have rational reasons for *not* doing so - especially when you're doing the exact same thing they are doing in analogous circumstance A.




Oh really? Then why ...


... is what you write next exactly the point behind the analogy? Nobody's seen it. Yet nobody can prove it won't happen, and you apparently didn't run around demanding all those doctors consider a supernatural cause.



You do realize that my 'pretend problem' is the story of Job with a doctor thrown in, don't you? It was apparently worth putting in the holy book of a major religion.

You appear to be just fine with people not considering supernatural causes when diagnosing patients, but not when considering abiogenesis. Your inconsistency is showing again ...

Creationism is an unknown that cannot ever be a known. If it's ever contradicted through evidence, if tomorrow someone came with overwhelming evidence for it being a natural process, someone would be able to say 'ok, well, that's how the creator did it'. Why should *anyone* have to consider that as equivalent to potential explanations that are actually falsifiable, when we don't demand that doctors consider supernatural causes as equivalent to actually falsifiable potential conditions?
This may come as a huge shock, but I'm not much of a bible scholar. I'm unfamiliar with the Job with Doctor story. Amazingly, I've still been able to hold a job without it. Google pulls up job opportunities, care to share the readers digest version?

I'll tell you what, the next time a patient asks me to consider supernatural etiologies, I'll do it. Fair enough?

I think we've covered the lack of "supernatural" need. If life was made, It would be the nature if reality. No need to label a poorly understood process as supernatural, unless the goal is to dismiss the possibility without any real consideration, is there?
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 14:22.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,101
367 Members
734 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42