Jump to content
hawkowl

Humans are ..... how old?

Recommended Posts

How do you know your conclusions are valid in the real world if the framework with which you have used to derive them has no predictive powers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read my way through this -- awesome, awesome work Tinny. You managed to demonstrate the reasonable restraint that is the hallmark of the best science, while at the same time illuminating the angry ranting that is the last recourse of the fundamentalist. Plus, of course, a whole shitload of wonderful information. Your wife is a very lucky man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, the 'scientific method' doesn't have a monopoly on inductive reasoning.

I'm sure you're right, and FTR I am very fuzzy on the precise meanings of a lot of psychological terms.

 

The thing I was trying to get across is that "scientific method" is really just an extension of "when the cooktop element is glowing, it's probably hot so I shouldn't touch it. Therefore if other bits of metal are glowing they're probably hot too, and I shouldn't touch them either" kind of reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Animal sacrifice was probably one of those things that sprung up because doing so coincidentally made something happen, or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, the 'scientific method' doesn't have a monopoly on inductive reasoning.

I'm sure you're right, and FTR I am very fuzzy on the precise meanings of a lot of psychological terms.

 

The thing I was trying to get across is that "scientific method" is really just an extension of "when the cooktop element is glowing, it's probably hot so I shouldn't touch it. Therefore if other bits of metal are glowing they're probably hot too, and I shouldn't touch them either" kind of reasoning.

 

 

That's not really true.

 

The major philosophical drives that generated rationalism and the scientific method, grew out of search for truth, and the understanding that no single person can identify a Truth.

If it cannot be replicated by anybody with the same equipment, and circumstance then it's not even true, let alone Truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK maybe I understood the point you were trying to make, though I'm not sure that the examples you provided can be labelled as the 'scientific method', which is after all what we were talking about. Personally I use MANY different ways to reach those types of conclusions, 'predictability' is not one of them. But then I maybe I read my own conclusion into what you wrote?

As I said above, I'm using "scientific method" in the pretty loose sense that people gauge and plan future actions based on outcomes they predict, such predictions being generated from past experiences in reality. I would surely like to know what other kind of reasoning processes you use to go about your daily life, aside from whimsy and random chance events.

 

imply put, "God dun it" has close to zero predictive power whereas (within certain limits of scope and application) the scientific method has great predictive power.

Therefore "science trumps God"? The logic doesn't work (ignoring FTM that the Bible is full of predictive stuff as well (and no I didn't mean prophetic though I guess that counts as well.), oras I said, maybe I misunderstood your point. If your point was that the Bible doesn't teach you how to make CPU's then that's true, but then that's not it's job either and knowing how to make CPU's doesn't invalidate the BIble in any way that I can see . :)

"Science trumps God" is a practically usesless statement with zero context. What I'm getting at is that this method of reasoning is useful for predicting every day occurences and making everyday decisions, whereas the Bible is not a terribly good predictive tool. Your own words show that you understand what I'm getting at, you just don't think that that is what I'm saying.

 

...

 

I never said that one procedes from the other. Where did you get that? O_o

It was kinda obvious, but knowing that the movements of the planets can cause certain things to happen on Earth, again may or may not be true but says nothing about the Bible. Now when you get to the philosphical part of the regression, tat 'we are all just star-stuff (hum 'Somewhere over the rainbow for effect') then the shit fight starts again as we are not dealing with facts but rather ideas and interpretations.

 

Although, now that you mention it although the Incas used their extremely accurate sky-maps to time festivals to pacify the mountain Gods whose parties and conflicts caused earthquakes, the methods they used to create the maps and calendars were a great example of scientific method: take a set of measurements and make predictions, and where predictions are wrong refine the measurements and adjust the predictions to suit observations.

Yup, I reckon folk were a lot smarter back then and we've got dumber (but more knowledgeable) as time progressed.

 

I'll confess, I don't know quite what you're getting at with this line of thought. I may have got a bit off track myself. All I'm saying is that the Inca were dead wrong about blood sacrifices being useful for appeasing the Gods or making it rain, but their extremely accurate observations and predictions allowed their calendar for the timing of such sacrifices to be quite accurate.

 

FWIW, the 'scientific method' doesn't have a monopoly on inductive reasoning.

I'm sure you're right, and FTR I am very fuzzy on the precise meanings of a lot of psychological terms.

 

The thing I was trying to get across is that "scientific method" is really just an extension of "when the cooktop element is glowing, it's probably hot so I shouldn't touch it. Therefore if other bits of metal are glowing they're probably hot too, and I shouldn't touch them either" kind of reasoning.

 

That's not really true.

 

The major philosophical drives that generated rationalism and the scientific method, grew out of search for truth, and the understanding that no single person can identify a Truth.

If it cannot be replicated by anybody with the same equipment, and circumstance then it's not even true, let alone Truth.

 

The (now faded) scars on my hand and arm from the times I burnt myself on the same electric frying pan beg to differ re: the truth-finding capabilities of a child who's curious about sizzling bacon. Edited by thesorehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done, Tinbane.

 

This thread should be a tutorial for all about how to communicate effectively in a thread when faced with an adversary,who's only goal is to create disruption within that thread.

 

Fighting fire with fire merely adds fuel to the fire, something that Tinbane has effectively avoided, and in the process has effectively knocked his opponent's ramblings for a six.

 

I also agree with the general consensus of +1 for POTM.

 

Good work, dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Wishful thinking or serious science??"

 

Answers:

Hawkowl: "Totally wishful thinking, God etc."

Proof: "More wishful thinking, QED heathens."

 

Tinbane: "Serious science"

Proof: "More serious science, which has been backed up by even more serious science, all based on solid cause and effect observation based reasoning."

 

 

+1 POTM TinBane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If TB doesn't get POTM they should just fucking cancel it.

 

Oh, and after reading this thread, I'm now an atheist.

 

There is absolutely no way I could believe in the possibility of a god if it involves association with people with such closed minds.

 

Actually, what's the next stop past atheism?

Does it double back and then become belief in god again? Circular logic? If I don't don't believe in god does that mean I must believe in god?

 

 

Hmmm. If you're right and we are trapped by circular logic, then there is no,

 

Posted Image

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK maybe I understood the point you were trying to make, though I'm not sure that the examples you provided can be labelled as the 'scientific method', which is after all what we were talking about. Personally I use MANY different ways to reach those types of conclusions, 'predictability' is not one of them. But then I maybe I read my own conclusion into what you wrote?

As I said above, I'm using "scientific method" in the pretty loose sense that people gauge and plan future actions based on outcomes they predict, such predictions being generated from past experiences in reality. I would surely like to know what other kind of reasoning processes you use to go about your daily life, aside from whimsy and random chance events.

Logic, experience, common sense, mostly intuitive stuff.

 

imply put, "God dun it" has close to zero predictive power whereas (within certain limits of scope and application) the scientific method has great predictive power.

Therefore "science trumps God"? The logic doesn't work (ignoring FTM that the Bible is full of predictive stuff as well (and no I didn't mean prophetic though I guess that counts as well.), oras I said, maybe I misunderstood your point. If your point was that the Bible doesn't teach you how to make CPU's then that's true, but then that's not it's job either and knowing how to make CPU's doesn't invalidate the BIble in any way that I can see . :)

"Science trumps God" is a practically usesless statement with zero context. What I'm getting at is that this method of reasoning is useful for predicting every day occurences and making everyday decisions, whereas the Bible is not a terribly good predictive tool.

So are you trying to equate common everyday reasoning with the scientific method?

And regardless why are you trying to contrast reasoning power with the Bibles 'Predictive power'? The Bible has plenty of predictive stuff (in the context that you are using it) for day to day life.

 

 

Your own words show that you understand what I'm getting at, you just don't think that that is what I'm saying.

Nope, I'm just trying to be perfectly clear on what it is you are saying, you know, so that I don't jump to the wrong conclusion. ;)

 

...

 

I never said that one procedes from the other. Where did you get that? O_o

It was kinda obvious, but knowing that the movements of the planets can cause certain things to happen on Earth, again may or may not be true but says nothing about the Bible. Now when you get to the philosphical part of the regression, tat 'we are all just star-stuff (hum 'Somewhere over the rainbow for effect') then the shit fight starts again as we are not dealing with facts but rather ideas and interpretations.

 

Although, now that you mention it although the Incas used their extremely accurate sky-maps to time festivals to pacify the mountain Gods whose parties and conflicts caused earthquakes, the methods they used to create the maps and calendars were a great example of scientific method: take a set of measurements and make predictions, and where predictions are wrong refine the measurements and adjust the predictions to suit observations.

Yup, I reckon folk were a lot smarter back then and we've got dumber (but more knowledgeable) as time progressed.

 

I'll confess, I don't know quite what you're getting at with this line of thought. I may have got a bit off track myself. All I'm saying is that the Inca were dead wrong about blood sacrifices being useful for appeasing the Gods or making it rain, but their extremely accurate observations and predictions allowed their calendar for the timing of such sacrifices to be quite accurate.

Yup. But then if you ever find the person, group or society that understands all things perfectly then please tell me where to find them. (Actually never mind they wouldn't let me in anyway. ) But are you trying to say here that ancient civilisations understood some things correctly and then with the influence of other cultures and the advancement of knowledge then other things have been proven to be false?

Edited by Director

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

We're clearly speaking a different language here. If you can't or won't drill down to examine the origins of your logic, experience, common sense or intuition; how they inform your decision-making process; and what that decision-making process is based on, then we are talking about completely different things.

 

I'm talking about a kind of relational framework which the mind seems to automatically generate based on our experiences. Provided with a goal or a priority, this framework will predict outcomes of various actions with varying degrees of accuracy, depending on the detail and precision of the framework itself. The difference between this and Bible is the same as the difference bewteen this and any text: a text is a written record - ideas, instructions, whatever; the relational framework idea is a process that seemingly occurs automatically.

 

My point is that the scientific method is a version of this automatic process which has been customised for a particular purpose; whereas the Bible is a text which does not contain the information which would have prevented me from burning myself on an electric frypan.

Edited by thesorehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Primitive man really exploded onto the scene didn't he?

About 6000 -5000 years ago, he appeared as we today know him and recognise him, homo sapiens.

Immediately they constructed cities, developed a spoken language, developed agriculture, invented musical instruments and even began forging metals.

Not bad for someone that had been a hunter gatherer for millions of years.

Then even more astonishingly they undertook the construction of mighty stone edifices, that are so astoundingly complex to the modern day observer that some have contributed their construction to aliens.

 

This event though harmonizes well with what the oldest extant book tell us happened on our planet at that time.

It also explains why there are missing neanderthals, and throws light on the supposed "missing link" between homo sapiens and whatever homo was supposed to precede us.

 

I'm surprised that so many people today are so totally engrossed in their day to day lives, that they never stop even to consider it..

Are you saying its a coincidence that recorded history began when we first were able to record it?

 

Attributing the start of recorded history to the creation of man instead of the creation of recordable mediums is an example of the grandiose circular logic which was used to seduce you many years ago Hawkowl.

 

Wake up!

 

I wanted to highlight this. The logic hawkowl was using made no sense, and M100 points out why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

We're clearly speaking a different language here. If you can't or won't drill down to examine the origins of your logic, experience, common sense or intuition; how they inform your decision-making process; and what that decision-making process is based on, then we are talking about completely different things.

 

I'm talking about a kind of relational framework which the mind seems to automatically generate based on our experiences. Provided with a goal or a priority, this framework will predict outcomes of various actions with varying degrees of accuracy, depending on the detail and precision of the framework itself. The difference between this and Bible is the same as the difference bewteen this and any text: a text is a written record - ideas, instructions, whatever; the relational framework idea is a process that seemingly occurs automatically.

Except you seem to be missing the forest for the trees. The Bible EXPLAINS how all of things came to be and how they work and what their purpose is, much more than mere science can teach you. Now can everything the Bible says be fitted into the narrow framework you noted below? No way, and thank God for that.

 

My point is that the scientific method is a version of this automatic process which has been customised for a particular purpose; whereas the Bible is a text which does not contain the information which would have prevented me from burning myself on an electric frypan.

And I think you'll find that originally the 'scientific method' came about through people who REASONED that that is a creator and if that is true then it's seems logical that truth exists and the scientific method is one way to find it. Of course the whole things been hijacked now so maybe you can't see the frame of reference, I'm sure I can find linkies.

 

And do you think you need either the Bible OR scientific methodology to stop you from burning yourself on a stove? (Most 2 year olds can figure that out. :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet Christians think we need the bible to teach us not to randomly kill people, which is obvious to the majority of people in the world without it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet Christians think we need the bible to teach us not to randomly kill people, which is obvious to the majority of people in the world without it.

 

Do we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...a text is a written record - ideas, instructions, whatever; the relational framework idea is a process that seemingly occurs automatically.

Except you seem to be missing the forest for the trees. The Bible EXPLAINS how all of things came to be and how they work and what their purpose is, much more than mere science can teach you. Now can everything the Bible says be fitted into the narrow framework you noted below? No way, and thank God for that.
The Bible doesn't explain how all things work (beyond "God dun it"). Nor does it explain the purpose of all things (beyond "God wants it that way").

 

I'm not sure why this isn't getting through to you: the Bible and the relational framework cannot be compared directly. To the relational framework, the Bible is no different to any other source of information. That information is no different to other information which goes towards building the relational framework. And like other information, it is subject to certain built-in restrictions that determine how it is integrated into the framework - restrictions which differ from person to person and change from time to time.

 

My point is that the scientific method is a version of this automatic process ... the Bible is a text which does not contain the information which would have prevented me from burning myself on an electric frypan.

And I think you'll find that originally the 'scientific method' came about through people who REASONED that that is a creator and if that is true then it's seems logical that truth exists and the scientific method is one way to find it. Of course the whole things been hijacked now so maybe you can't see the frame of reference, I'm sure I can find linkies.

 

And do you think you need either the Bible OR scientific methodology to stop you from burning yourself on a stove? (Most 2 year olds can figure that out. :) )

 

Once again, the point has been missed. I'm not talking about origin, I'm talking about function. I was completely unaware of the formalised scientific process while I was learning about hot electric appliances, but that didn't prevent my mind from using the same (albeit vastly expanded) framework I use today to make decisions based on predictions which saved my extremities from further frypan-based injuries. As I may have said, my ideas on this subject are the product of very little research and a great deal of introspection. That philosophers had to go the long way around in order to arrive at a similar methodology is completely irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet Christians think we need the bible to teach us not to randomly kill people, which is obvious to the majority of people in the world without it.

 

Do we?

 

 

The mainstream Christian apologists such as William Lane Craig believe so. They believe morals come from outside of the person and must come from god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet Christians think we need the bible to teach us not to randomly kill people, which is obvious to the majority of people in the world without it.

 

Do we?

 

 

The mainstream Christian apologists such as William Lane Craig believe so. They believe morals come from outside of the person and must come from god.

 

To be fair, there's usually a duality there. They say that god gave you baseline morality inbuilt, plus you can get extra kudos (generally in the form of a dandy afterlife) for following their particular interpretation of their preferred text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you trying to equate common everyday reasoning with the scientific method?

And regardless why are you trying to contrast reasoning power with the Bibles 'Predictive power'? The Bible has plenty of predictive stuff (in the context that you are using it) for day to day life.

I'm sure that I'm not the only person here who is interested in a demonstration of this claim.

 

Except you seem to be missing the forest for the trees. The Bible EXPLAINS how all of things came to be

No it doesn't it has a creation story. Technically it has two creation stories that aren't congruous.

 

and how they work and what their purpose is,

Like how God made two lights? One to rule the day and the lesser to rule the night? Just ignoring for a minute that the moon is not a source of light and that you can see it during the day for a significant amount of it's orbit.

 

much more than mere science can teach you. Now can everything the Bible says be fitted into the narrow framework you noted below? No way, and thank God for that.

I'm not going to try to convince you that there isn't a god or that your beliefs are wrong however you can't post unsupported claims and not expect to defend them.

 

If I've followed the conversation correctly this back and forth started because you fail to appreciate the predicitve power of science which delivers the modern comforts of technology. You then try to conflate prophecy with science's predictive power however have yet to demonstrate any of it.

 

To be fair, there's usually a duality there. They say that god gave you baseline morality inbuilt, plus you can get extra kudos (generally in the form of a dandy afterlife) for following their particular interpretation of their preferred text.

Actually, the philosophical argument is over objective morality i.e. There is a baseline as you mention. Any form of subjective morality becomes relativistic and therefore you have an issue defining what you 'ought' to do. That is how do you measure how something is right or wrong against a constantly moving target. FWIW I don't think that it's impossible however the Moral argument for God still stands as reasonable. Edited by galdarian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you trying to equate common everyday reasoning with the scientific method?

And regardless why are you trying to contrast reasoning power with the Bibles 'Predictive power'? The Bible has plenty of predictive stuff (in the context that you are using it) for day to day life.

I'm sure that I'm not the only person here who is interested in a demonstration of this claim.

OK how's this: "Leave the presence of a fool, for there you do not meet words of knowledge." or this "As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his foolishness."

 

Pretty predictive IMO.

 

Except you seem to be missing the forest for the trees. The Bible EXPLAINS how all of things came to be

No it doesn't it has a creation story. Technically it has two creation stories that aren't congruous.

Only if you don't know how to use google.

 

 

and how they work and what their purpose is,

Like how God made two lights? One to rule the day and the lesser to rule the night? Just ignoring for a minute that the moon is not a source of light and that you can see it during the day for a significant amount of it's orbit.

Yes, you are right, I've NEVER seen the moon at night before and it's always brighter than the sun during the day, why didn't anyone else point that out to me, would have saved heaps of time for all of us.

 

much more than mere science can teach you. Now can everything the Bible says be fitted into the narrow framework you noted below? No way, and thank God for that.

I'm not going to try to convince you that there isn't a god or that your beliefs are wrong however you can't post unsupported claims and not expect to defend them.

Why not?

 

If I've followed the conversation correctly this back and forth started because you fail to appreciate the predicitve power of science which delivers the modern comforts of technology. You then try to conflate prophecy with science's predictive power however have yet to demonstrate any of it.

Well then you haven't followed the conversation correctly. I applaud real science and is predictive and other disciplines when it comes to technology and other 'real ' stuff like that, and I also went out of my way to point out that I was not referring to prophecy when talking about the Bibles predictive properties (as you can see from the above verses). My objection is not even to the actual hard evidence when it comes to the topic at hand, i.e. evolution (fossils, natural selection etc ). My objection is and always has been that the interpretation of those things is incorrect is BETTER explained by the Bible rather than resorting to naturalism, which is a belief or a philosophy and not real science. In the end this debate and others like come down not to 'science' V 'faith' but your beliefs versus my beliefs.

 

To be fair, there's usually a duality there. They say that god gave you baseline morality inbuilt, plus you can get extra kudos (generally in the form of a dandy afterlife) for following their particular interpretation of their preferred text.

You must have read a different Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that all it takes for a Book to be useful and helpful and predictive?

 

"When you see X, it will be X"

 

Neat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×