1. Christian group halts book launch

Comment #283679 by Ty_Webb on November 13, 2008 at 5:30 pm

62 Border Collie - I've been reading that link, which hopefully will explain my sentiments here:

I've been thinking about this and it occurred to me that "Christian Voice" is very nearly an anagram of "bunch of fucktards" - not perfect I will concede, but close enough.

Reading links like that one of yours makes me realise I have a couple of things in common with the fundies. Firstly, I wish that the rapture thing was true, and secondly I wish it would hurry up and happen so that the rest of us can get on with life.

2. Unknown 'Structures' Tugging at Universe, Study Says

Comment #281053 by Ty_Webb on November 9, 2008 at 1:51 pm

It can't be, not directly. If something is beyond the visible universe at a certain point, it can have no influence, as that influence would have to travel faster than light.

Does something 7 billion light years away have a different horizon to us and if so couldn't there be something 15 billion light years away from us exerting an influence on it which we could not see?

To go back to comments 280493, 280586, 280588, when I first read this I thought how can there be something outside the visible universe that is affecting things we can detect because to do so, information would have to be traveling faster than light. What's been said above is I think true in so far as that the edge of the visible universe would be in a different place if you were at the bullet cluster of galaxies. And hence, there could be something that we couldn't see that was influencing the bullet cluster. I think where this falls down (and I'm not an expert here, so correct me if I'm wrong) is that the bullet cluster that we are seeing is 3.8 billion light years away and hence the light from it is 3.8 billion years old. When that light left the bullet cluster 3.8 billion years ago, the edge of the visible universe at the bullet cluster should be in the same place as ours is now - in that direction anyway. That should mean that the stuff outside the visible universe for us now, can't be affecting the bullet cluster that we see now, otherwise relativity gets broken. Indeed, shouldn't general relativity mean it's impossible for us to ever know anything at all outside the visible universe? So, for the premise of this article to be correct, doesn't it require general relativity to be false?

Or am I missing something?

3. No-God squad climb aboard the atheist bus

Comment #273320 by Ty_Webb on October 28, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Sadly, I can see the buses being vandalized because of this saying.

Probably by people who believe that religion is the only place from which you can get morality.

4. 'Intelligent' computers put to the test

Comment #262289 by Ty_Webb on October 8, 2008 at 9:04 am

I have never really liked the way the standard test is performed though. In my opinion it would make it far more interesting if all of the Machines and Humans were in a mock Chat room and had an hour to talk to each other and at the end bets will be placed and the Machines will be revealed. This would be interesting because the Machine would have to manage more than 1 separate conversations and Machines will end up talking to Machines. Maybe the good ones that have a more realistic memory mechanism would be able to relay information from one conversation into another

That would actually make it easy to pass. You could do what Derren Brown did when he played a bunch of chess masters. If a machine talks to two people, it starts the conversation with one and the person starts the other. Then the computer just relays the information that the other person gives. It would end up being basically the same as you and me on here. You're effectively talking to your computer, as am I.

Wouldn't be particularly interesting I know, but I think it's right that one person talks to one computer and that's it. Or at least, one person talks to a series of computers and people and then picks.

5. Do We Live in a Giant Cosmic Bubble?

Comment #258146 by Ty_Webb on October 1, 2008 at 1:24 pm

First of all, the kind of bubble they talk about in the article has a radius of a few billion light years, so it is smaller than the observable universe. Then you have the kind of bubbles you get in inflationary scenarios. The exact size of these bubbles depends on the details of the inflation model, but they are typically much larger than the observable universe. What the conditions are like outside the observable universe is again hard to tell. There might be different "physical laws", at least for those laws where the details were determined by events taking place after inflation. And outside our bubble, the laws may be very different.

Are we really able to detect supernovae at further away than a billion light years? I got the impression from the article that the light got more diffuse when it crossed into our "bubble". Or is this just while it passes through the bubble area, so closer ones would be affected as well. If it's the latter, how did we set our baseline? If supernovae look dimmer than predicted, why do our predictions expect a denser area of space when the area around us is the one that we're "used to"? Sorry for all the questions. I don't really understand and I find this stuff fascinating.

As an aside, the observable universe is presumably getting larger (by around 1 light-year per year). Does that mean that at some point in the future, the entire universe would become visible (assuming it's not expanding)? And, does it mean that new things (if they're moving towards us from outside the observable universe) will pop into view over time?

6. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244888 by Ty_Webb on September 9, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Finally, let's be realistic. CO2 production isn't going to stop anytime soon. At best, we might be able to slow the rate of increase, not stop it.

And therein lies the rub doesn't it? The way I see it (and I'm more than happy to change my mind if someone points out where I'm wrong) is there's a certain amount of carbon in the form of fossil fuels in the ground. As we burn that, we're adding that to the atmosphere. Given that this is the "additional" chunk that's being added by humans, that amount is going to have whatever effect it has.

So, if the end result of burning all the fossil fuel reserves on the planet is going to be to increase CO2 concentrations to X (whatever that might be), surely it doesn't make any difference whether that happens in 50 years or 100 years. Slowing it down is only delaying the problem, so the politicians telling us to reduce our carbon footprint (which generally speaking has a cost - if it didn't, we'd do it anyway) are asking us to endure that cost when in the end we're going to have to deal with the global warming effects anyway.

The only way to stop it is to cease all burning of fossil fuels and with the best will in the world, that's never going to happen. There are other arguments for conserving energy I know, but I don't think they're that relevant here.

Personally I think we'd be much better off preparing ourselves for the effects of it than trying to stop it, because that strikes me as an exercise in futility (an expensive one at that).

7. Susskind Quashes Hawking in Quarrel Over Quantum Quandary

Comment #207800 by Ty_Webb on July 10, 2008 at 7:28 am

Technical question:

If information isn't completely erased in a singularity, does that mean that if the infinitely expanding and contracting idea of universes is true, then we could see before the big bang to the previous universe? Theoretically speaking of course.

8. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203077 by Ty_Webb on July 2, 2008 at 10:59 am

Well, I'm outraged that anyone could find that puppy "ritually unclean" and will be expecting an apology from the complainants.

9. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194675 by Ty_Webb on June 17, 2008 at 7:08 am

Newbie question. The article mentions mass, but aren't they just indirectly measuring size and inferring mass - or does size generally correspond to mass for planets of this type?

I'm guessing here, but I imagine that the amount of wobble that they see is more dependent on mass than volume, so it's more likely that they measure the mass and infer the size.

Question of my own. By my back of the envelope scribblings, I think if mass is 8 times that of earth and the density is the same, then the radius is 2 times that of earth. Since gravitational force is proportional to 1/r squared, it should mean that gravity would be roughly twice what it is here. I imagine that would make it fairly difficult to survive for us. However, for a planet 4.2 times the mass, assuming the density to be the same (I know that's a big assumption), we'd be looking at roughly 1.6g. I don't know how survivable that would be, but I am curious.

10. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190833 by Ty_Webb on June 9, 2008 at 4:55 pm

This article should have a note at the top that says something like "if you don't want to waste the next ten minutes of your life, read Peacebeuponme's comment no. 24." A succinct and yet complete summary of the entire article.

11. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183724 by Ty_Webb on May 22, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Nova

My understanding of the situation is that the vast majority of those abortions that happen post 20 weeks are in instances of medical need. The point therefore being, at least as I see it, to reduce suffering. I think the suffering involved in having the abortion/being aborted is being weighed against the suffering involved in continuing to term. I don't think that decision has anything to do with society and it makes a whole lot of sense for the parents and their doctor to make this decision.

Mitchell Gilks

It's nice to be in agreement with you for a change ;)

12. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #179755 by Ty_Webb on May 13, 2008 at 4:22 pm

Well, I'm thinking it's a crying shame that God didn't bother to mention this when he was penning the old bible. I may have found that reasonably convincing (at least believable that the bible wasn't written by a few stone age peasants 2,000 years ago) if there were a couple of paragraphs in there along the lines of "oh yes, and I stuck some life on a couple of other planets too. These are the coordinates... Not that these will mean anything to you for a couple of thousand years, but heyho"

Or maybe he did and the Nicene wotsit decided against its inclusion because it was obviously heretical. Shows what they knew.

On a slightly more serious note, I think the vatican is concerned that we may find evidence of extraterrestrial life and that this will be another nail in the coffin for religion. Hence, they go out of their way to prepare a defence. It's pathetic IMHO.

13. 85% of Americans Want a Presidential Debate on Science

Comment #179716 by Ty_Webb on May 13, 2008 at 2:56 pm

"...Issues also considered serious by a majority of U.S. adults include global economic competition (55%), poverty (53%) and climate change (53%).... "

So...

Issues not considered serious by a large minority of U.S. adults include global economic competition (45%), poverty (47%) and climate change (47%)

So, you could literally flip a coin and see if the "average" american cares.

If you look at the actual survey results, the highest ones were healthcare, alternative energy sources and education. My suspicion would be this is in fairly close agreement with a similar survey in the UK. And I would point out that climate change and alternative energy sources are reasonably closely linked.

I don't know how many answers they were allowed to tick for the question, but if it were say, 3 out of a set of options, I can easily see how those things could end up lower down the list than some of the others.

Link here: http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/images/Poll08/Slide5.gif

14. The Stupidity of Dignity

Comment #179001 by Ty_Webb on May 12, 2008 at 11:21 am

The Catholic Church, with its long tradition of scholarship and its rock-solid moral precepts, became the natural home for this movement

I think my sarcasm meter may have just broken. There's smoke coming out of it and the needle appears to be bent.

15. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177516 by Ty_Webb on May 9, 2008 at 8:12 am

Martin Salter, the Labour MP for Reading West and a member of Reading inter-faith group, said: "I think all faiths could be treated equally under our constitution. These figures demonstrate the absurdity of favouring one brand of Christianity over other parts of the Christian faith and the many other religions that grace our shores."

Someone should really write to the editor of the Times and tell him/her that blight is not spelt g, r, a, c, e.

I think a large part of the reason that Christianity is dwindling in the UK is because it's a state religion. When kids go to school and are forced to enter into some form of worship, all the kids do it and some of them really don't want to. Those that don't want to are put off for life and they exert significant peer pressure on their fellow pupils. Such as "don't tell me you actually enjoy going to chapel" or whatever. That rubs off and you end up with all but a hardy few going along with the whole thing. Somewhere like the US where there is no compulsion however results in only those who want to go going, so they are surrounded by others who want to go, so there's no one to exert that peer pressure or disruption.

I think one of the best ways to knock back religious belief in the US is to make kids go to church with each other. Make it a part of the school curriculum and watch the rebellious ones drag everyone else out with them.

16. The History Channel might do something right

Comment #176177 by Ty_Webb on May 6, 2008 at 7:35 pm

Find out how dinosaurs adapted their eyes to become such successful hunters of prey.

I don't know about anyone else, but I get uneasy about phrases like this. It implies that animals adapt themselves to evolve. I'd far rather they said something like "Find out how dinosaurs' eyes adapted (or maybe even evolved) to make them such successful hunters of prey".

17. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #176125 by Ty_Webb on May 6, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Even theologians accept that the bible is not evidence and thus it requires faith.

They may well accept it's not proof. I imagine that most of them would consider it to be evidence. I don't know how many times I have to say I'm not talking about proof. This is the last.

You definition is ambiguous, and tells me nothing, it is a bad definition that has the word it is defining in it. "What's a gloggle?" Oh, well that's the things that are gloggle."

I'm afraid I don't know what you're referring to here. If it's my definition of evidence, which is the only word I'm trying to define, I'm afraid that "that which tends to prove or disprove" does not contain the word evidence. It does contain proof (or a derivation of it), but see my previous paragraph.

See, I'm explicate, that which tends to prove is sufficient evidence, proper sound a valid logical inferences, or properly demonstrated and worked out mathematical abstractions that lead to a conclusion validly supported by it's equations or premises. That is what tends to prove, per all the other definitions of proof if you care to look. I'm talking about the evidence one.

No, that is what proves. "Tends" is a word that doesn't necessarily get you the whole way, but moves you one way or t'other along the proven/not proven line. That you have evidence doesn't mean that you have proof and that you don't have proof doesn't make evidence not evidence.

"testimony is evidence" is not clearly not true.

Agreed

... tesimony (sic), which then inturn (sic) becomes accepted as evidence

Thank you. That's exactly what I've been saying all along.

I think we're done.

18. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #176017 by Ty_Webb on May 6, 2008 at 11:12 am

The whole argument here is about whether a claim can be considered as evidence. The fact that you dismiss a thousand years of history of justice in the UK by calling them mistaken is your prerogative. So be it.

Proven - I don't recall ever saying I couldn't find a definition that met up with yours. Anyhow, if proof "compels acceptance", then evolution is not proven because there are minds around that don't accept it. If it were compelled, then everyone would believe it to be true. You may say that these people are either stupid or don't have all the facts and you'd probably be right (or deluded maybe), but unless you say "rational mind would be compelled" then it doesn't work. Likewise, if proof is merely sufficient to inspire belief, then the bible is proof because it inspires belief. I don't think that's a particularly helpful definition in this context.

And claims are not independent of the claimant. If someone claims to have seen something, and they can be shown to have been present, then that claim has a lot more weight behind it than if someone else says the exact same thing, but can be shown not to have been present. If someone makes a claim, then we can determine probabilistically the credibility of the claimant, by which we determine the credibility of the claim that they have made.

Leaving all this aside, please can you answer me this one question.

The dictionary describes evidence as "that which tends to prove or disprove". Courts accept testimony in attempting to prove or disprove someone's guilt. So, one of the following three things must be true:

1. Testimony is evidence
2. The dictionary is wrong
3. Courts don't accept testimony

Which one is it? I'm fairly certain that it's not three, because I'm pretty sure that they do accept testimony. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. The dictionary may be wrong, but you were happy to rely on it for the definition of proof. I think that leaves one. You are of course free to introduce further options if you can show me that I've made a mistake in my reasoning.

19. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #175812 by Ty_Webb on May 6, 2008 at 5:20 am

http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/witness/the_case/giving_evidence/index.html

Hmm. Maybe this is a two countries separated by a common language thing. Perhaps it's just the way they do things in England and it's different in Canada/US, but this looks very much to me like (in England at least) giving evidence in court is the way it's put.

You may be right about anti-reductionists too, but I didn't see any outright dismissal like that in the page I linked to. If I've missed that, I'd appreciate an indication of where it comes.

"Necessary truths"...

I know. I don't disagree with you. I just get fussy about using a word like "truth". I'm pretty sure scientists don't do things like this. Like they don't say things like "evolution by natural selection is proven". They might say "evolution by natural selection has so much evidence for it that it is as close to proven as anything could be" or some other hedge that avoids the term proven.

Because I'm unaware of a method for how it could be accomplished. If you have one, then I'm all ears (or eyes, I should say).

In the little paragraph I put there, I put exactly the same things as you did, except I said at the beginning "the claim" and then later "the claimant" rather than starting with the person. So if you can do it for the person, then you can do it for the claimant since they're the same thing.

20. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #175435 by Ty_Webb on May 5, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Wow, it's annoying to type a long response and then lost it because the website logged you out. Try again:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/testimony-episprob/

Turns out I'm not alone in thinking how I do. Even among people I can only assume are experts. Looks like the reductionists agree with you and the anti-reductionists agree with me. I'm happy to accept that both positions are reasonable and leave it at that.

You don't have to believe me (clearly you haven't to my dismay) though I don't think I have said anything even remotely controversial. I would think that anyone who has watched a court show knows this (I took a law class in highschool, though I didn't know the epistemology of the process until quite awhile later, gathered from philosophy.) to be true.

You mean the bit where they say "I'm giving evidence in court"? What should they have said? "I'm giving testimony"?

Then you simply don't think that a doctors credibility is enough to establish the truth of their claim (notice you have said this independent of any specific claims) because of information you have gathered that harms their credibility in your eyes. Well, that's fine, but I'm Canadian, and our doctors aren't in the back pocket of the pharmaceutical companies, so I'm good.

All I meant here was that it's unlikely that the treatment they suggest is the best possible. It might be the best available or the best possible currently, but I suspect that medical science will lead us further in the future. When doctors were advocating leeches and bloodletting, their claims then may have been believed to be true, but they weren't. In summary, it may be the truth that the doctor's claim is the right thing for you to do, but it might also not be. They do make mistakes. It can make a claim likely (very likely), but it doesn't make it truth (necessarily).

No, it does not establish the credibility of the claim, because credibility is established probabolistically, and requires past iterations of similar kinds. A claim is a singular thing. A person is not, you can estalish what the odds are that they are telling the truth, and know what they are talking about based on how trustworthy and credible, they have been in the past, and what they are likely to know based on what they have studied, and spent time learning in the past. Nothing similar can be done for a claim.

What is wrong with this statement: You can establish what the odds are that the claim is the truth, based on how trustworthy and credible the claimant has been in the past, and what they are likely to know based on what they have studied and spent time learning in the past. Why's that not something similar done for a claim?

21. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #175299 by Ty_Webb on May 5, 2008 at 6:36 am

If it were the claims alone than it wouldn't matter if it were a scientist that told me or a crossing guard, this clearly is not the case.

Okay, this is the bit I don't understand. Why can't evidence from different sources have different credibility? Why does the fact that the credibility of the claim depends on the credibility of the source, stop the claim from being evidence? So far as I can see, this is a claim made by you. It may or may not be true, so, to that end, IMO it is evidence that I am wrong, because before I had this discussion with you, I would never have entertained the idea. Thus, it changes the probability that I am right, and so, at least according to the dictionary, it is evidence. Now, forgive me for saying it, but I don't know you from Adam, so your credibility is not so good. Consequently, I don't give this evidence much credibility. If, on the other hand, you can back it up with some further evidence, I might a: consider your credibility improved and hence the evidence of your claim and b: accept that I'm wrong.

I am not accepting their claims without evidence, or even remotely taking the claims as evidence in themselves. As I have outlined numerous times, for testomonials, and claims, we establish the credibility of the person giving the claims

I don't disagree with you about establishing credibility. I would just say that we establish the credibility of the claimant in order to establish the credibility of the claim. If a claim is credible, then it is stronger evidence than if it isn't.

The claims in and of themselve only set how much evidence, or confirmation we will require before accepting them. Unless the claims contradict something we know is true about the world, or it is more likely that the claimant was mistaken than that the claim is true, then merely establishing the credibility of the claimant is evidence enough to accept the claim as true.

So what you're saying is that if a doctor tells you that you need to take some new pill to solve your medical problems, then because doctors are credible, that claim is true (or at least can be accepted as true)? Here, I would differ. I think that the doctor telling you this is sound evidence that it is the case, but far from proven. Not least because I don't think doctors have all the answers. I also question the influence of the pharmaceuticals (having read some other discussions on this site, which actually influenced my thinking).

Last question: Are you willing to accept the possibility that you are wrong on this? I am. And I'll gladly change my mind if you give me a cogent and convincing argument.

22. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #175121 by Ty_Webb on May 4, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Be that as it may, there are a large number of things that you (and I and everyone else) take based on testimony. Things about the objective world. Take DNA for example. It is double-helix shaped. I am going to assume that you agree with this. I've never seen it. The only way I have to know that this is the case is to accept the claims of scientists who say that this is the case. Sure, it's possible that I could look into it and find out for certain myself, but I don't have time to do so. I rely on the knowledge that were it not a double-helix shape, someone would have said so by now.

If you choose to ignore completely anecdotal evidence or testimony in determining whether the world is how it is, then you're never going to get far. There simply isn't enough time to seek out what you call evidence for everything. If you go to the doctor because you're sick and she tells you to take x medicine, do you just take it or do you investigate it first? Carry out your own trials etc? Or do you rely on the testimony of others who claim to have carried out these tests?

Whether you choose to call these things evidence or "credibility" (although I still think credibility is a property of evidence, not a thing in itself) or whatever doesn't matter. What does matter is that claims do provide us with a very good idea of how the world works, particularly when there is corroboration of those claims.

23. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #175068 by Ty_Webb on May 4, 2008 at 10:19 am

epeeist

Just googled "Railton's deductive-nomological-probabilistic model" and the third link was to your post. Weird. Those googlebots sure are quick to do their job. Will have a look into this. Thanks

24. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #175057 by Ty_Webb on May 4, 2008 at 9:51 am

Mitchell Gilks,

You should get yourself over to wikipedia and edit this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

They seem to think that anecdote can be evidence.

There are also a couple of examples of murder convictions absent a body (I only add these for interest's sake)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_John_Murdoch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reiser

Dr Benway

The thing is, I'm not arguing about confidence. I'm just arguing about the definition of evidence. I agree entirely with what you say about the confidence one can have in the bible. I think one could put a decent case together that the bible is better evidence against its claims than for them, but heyho.

The argument is: anecdote is evidence, yes or no. Mitchell Gilks brings up credibility, but it's not relevant how credible the evidence is, just whether it is evidence or not. If we were talking about proof, then credibility is very important, but we're not.

I think he thinks scientific evidence is evidence and everything else is not. I've said what the dictionary says on the meaning of the word, and I've looked it up in other places too and I can't find anything anywhere that says anecdotal evidence isn't evidence.

25. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #174384 by Ty_Webb on May 2, 2008 at 10:51 am

There are a few different concepts and application of the word "proof". There are mathematical, logical, and everyday proofs. The first two don't apply to the world, while the last one does. The only sense in which the word proof applies to the world is in the sense of evidence enough to establish something as true.

It is an "appeal to the people fallacy" to suggest that something is true because a certain number of people say so.

This all being said, it means one of these things must be true

1. Claims are not evidence
2. My definition of proof is mistaken
3. The logical fallacy is mistaken.

I am 100% sure that 2 and 3 are false (yay for tautological and deductive certainty). Both of which are easily looked into by you. That being said, it is logically impossible that 1 is also false, it then logically must be true.

If order to reject this, you must either reject proof, or logic.

You asked me this. My reply is that none of them need to be true because you have made a flawed assumption. You've assumed that if something is evidence, then compiling enough of it automatically leads to proof. This is something that you've just stated without any back up. My jawbone story was intended to provide an example of a situation where one piece of evidence repeated, no matter how many times doesn't lead to proof. The intention being to draw out the fact that your assumption is false. I figured that the jawbone example was a good way to do that because I figured that you would accept the jawbone counts as a piece of evidence. Turns out that my assumption (that you would consider a jawbone evidence of the appearance of an animal) was false too.

Evidence enough to establish something as true is the only kind of proof that applies to the world (by this I am to establish the physical existence or phenomenological event of something in reality), nothing about the world can be proven absolutely, and I never claimed otherwise, I infact explicated that evidence only implies our conclusions not necessitates them. I think, as I said before, that your problem stems from a lack of understand of epistomoloy.

I have said many times that I'm not talking about proof. Evidence doesn't necessarily have to lead to proof, no matter how many different pieces you might have. You say you explicated that evidence only implies our conclusions, not necessitates them. What's your support for this assertion. As I said in my previous post about the definition of the word evidence from the dictionary (something I note you have totally ignored), there's nothing in there that says what you're asserting. That means that you have to come up with a valid explanation why evidence that is strong enough to prove something on its own ceases to be considered as evidence all of a sudden. Nowhere have you done anything remotely like show that. Keep asserting it if you like, but it is meaningless to do so.

Evidence and proof is what we require, or offer for second hand accounts, we do not require evidence for first hand accounts. When you have wittnessed something first hand, you gather evidence to convince others, not yourself, you were there.

Okay, I misunderstood you here. I always thought first hand account represented the account provided by someone who was actually there. If what you're now saying is the case, what's the point of calling it an account. Why not first hand experience requires no evidence because we were there. To whom exactly are you accounting something. Anyway, since you say what you're saying, I don't disagree with you on this point.

I already talked about people in court, and how they establish credibility of the wittness. You ignored that. I also already explained that nothing would make court without actual evidence such as I described, but of course including a body. This is now going in circles, because when I originally make the objections, and gave the explanations, they went ignored.

Yes, they establish credibility of the witness. What's that got to do with anything here? If a witness is more or less credible, then the evidence that they provide is more or less credible as well. The fact that evidence can have varying levels of credibility doesn't magically stop that evidence from being evidence. I note that in this quote you have said "actual evidence, such as I described, but including a body." Well, that's fine, but a dead body is direct information that a murder happened, so why, all of a sudden are you now calling it evidence. Surely by your whacked out definition of the word, it's not evidence. Make your mind up.

Your attempt to obfuscate behind an ambiguous definition of proof was already pre-empted by one of my previous posts. I already explained what kind of evidence works to establish proof, and what proof means in that context. Igoring that is intellectually dishonest.

Like I said before, I'm not talking about proof. So, I think it should be fairly obvious that I'm not trying to obfuscate behind any ambiguous definitions of anything. You already explained what kind of evidence works to establish proof? So you accept that there are different kinds of evidence? Thank you, but again, I don't see the relevance of claiming that you're talking about a specific type of evidence, when I've never tried to make any claim along those lines.

Also I have showed more than my fair share of charity in this conversation, even entertaining examples that do not involve claims, but instead physical things removed from individuals, and irrelevent to what they have to say to try to prove claims are evidence. Clear false analogies, I did so to explain about those types of things so you could see how they are different. I could have just shot them down instantly and demanded examples that actually involve claims.

I explained above why I introduced those examples. The point of them seems to have gone clear over your head though. I'm not saying that if a jawbone counts as evidence, then so does a claim. That would be stupid. The whole point of the example was to demonstrate the falsehood in your argument. That you then claimed that a jawbone doesn't count as evidence took the discussion somewhere else.

Ad hoc examples, false analogies and invented stories are not a valid form of counter argument. Arguments involve clarifying your language, showing logical pathways between whatever you are trying to link, and addressing and correcting any problems pointed out by anyone. A counter argument involves showing how the criticisms are wrong, or how they don't effect your conclusion. You have done none of this.

Okay, try this then. The dictionary describes evidence as that which tends to prove or disprove. In the history of mankind, if there has been one claim that has ever turned out to be truthful, which surely even you will agree is the case, then that means that any random claim made by anyone (before we have any further information about the person making the claim or the claim itself) has a probability of being correct. That probability is broadly speaking the number of truthful claims divided by the number of total claims. It doesn't matter what those two numbers are, just that both are greater than one. That is unquestionably the case. To that end, a claim has a probability of being true. That means that it tends to either prove or disprove whatever it is that is being claimed about. That means it meets the dictionary definition of the word. I think this meets all the requirements of an argument that you've just set out. Let me know if I'm wrong about this as well.

You say a counter argument involves showing how the criticisms are wrong - that's what I was doing with the jawbone question. I explained that above. If you still don't understand, let me know.

It is also intellectually dishonest to ask what the fallacy is, I outlined three mutually exclusive premises, that if one is false, your conclusion is denied, one of which was the appeal to the people fallacy. You knew and know this. Now claiming you don't know what I was talking about it further dishonesty.

Oh? I've demonstrated quite clearly how those three things you set out were not a fair question because of the false assumption that you made in your question. By the way, by definition, three mutually exclusive premises cannot all be true, so two of them are bound to be false (and possibly all three), so if my conclusion is denied because one of them is false, when at least one of them is false by definition, then that's particularly helpful for your case isn't it? If this is the level of logic that you are using, it's little wonder that I don't agree with you.

In summary, that question you asked me is the same thing as saying "I have a yellow tie, what colour is it? A: blue B: red C: green"

It's none of them, because the question is wrong. I can't believe that you can't see this.

26. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #174156 by Ty_Webb on May 1, 2008 at 7:01 pm

Evidence is indirect information that implies a connection between things.

If I walk into a room and you are stabbing a guy todeath, that isn't evidence that you stabbed the guy, that is direct observation of the event.

If you say so. But when you testify in court later that you saw me do it, you're giving evidence. Your recollection is indirect information that implies a connection between me and the dead person being dead.

We don't need to prove things that we know are true, and we don't require evidence for first hand accounts.

Really? Surely first hand accounts do require further evidence. Otherwise if I claim to have seen a pig fly past my window just now, that's a first hand account and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't believe me unless you had some further evidence of that fact.

I'm blown away that you think an jawbone is evidence for an animal's existence, I misunderstood your example, now it's even more absurd. I thought you meant it was evidence for what everything besides the jawbone might have looked like. Finding a jawbone confirms that there must have been an animal that it came from. We aren't skeptical of the idea that bones come from dead animals until we have a few, that is not in question.

You didn't misunderstand my example. I meant what you thought. The jawbone does not however conclusively prove that the animal in question existed. It could have been falsified and planted there. In any case, the jawbone does not conclusively prove what it looked like either. For example, we don't know what colour its skin was or what soft bits it may have had on top of the bones. The jawbone does help us along the way to deciding what it looked like. To that end, the jawbone is information that tends to prove what the animal looked like. I looked up evidence in the dictionary and it says "that which tends to prove or disprove". Since the jawbone tends to prove a: that the animal existed and b: what the animal may have looked like, it certainly fits the dictionary definition of evidence.

Direct information doesn't imply a conclusion, it establishes it.

Given the definition of evidence in the dictionary, which I gave above, that still comprises evidence. At least, by the dictionary definition.

People also don't make claims about animals they think might have existed and then try to establish evidence for them (at least not sane ones). We go and dig bones up, and we establish facts about the creatures based on the information the bones offer. Evolution does allow us to make predictions about what we should find in the fossil record, but then the bones we find are not evidence of the animals, they are a varification of the animals, and evidence for the truth of the theory that allowed for the prediction.

If you say so, I'd be surprised if there weren't at least some species of ocean dwellers that have been seen by sailors/fishermen that were subsequently discovered by people looking for them.

The thread I linked, I am using the same avatar, but what I'm sayings is not important, I wanted you to notice how closely your style of argument follows along with the threat starter. I thought that should raise some red flags for you.

I'll have a look.

I have outlined what evidence is, and why claims are not evidence in and of themselves.

Well, that's what you claim. I think that's just about all you've done.

You continue to invent stories to try to rationalise that they are.

Oh? Silly me, there I was thinking that coming up with a counter example to a claim is a perfectly valid form of debate. Which logical fallacy am I falling prey to? As an example, if you claim that all Irish people have red hair, to prove you wrong, all I need to do is find an Irish person without red hair. Surely.

There isn't anything I can do to this. I have reasoned out why your wrong, showed why it makes no logical sense, and have consistently knocked down every story you have invented.

You haven't reasoned out any such thing. All you have done is claimed that this and that are not evidence. You haven't demonstrated in the slightest why your definition of evidence is a better one than mine. My jawbone was an example of something which is evidence (at least by the dictionary definition) and where piling up lots of other bits of evidence which are exactly the same (ie more jawbones) doesn't help any further with determining what the animal looks like. This is a perfectly reasonable counter example to your claim that if something comprises evidence, then if you have enough instances of the same thing then that amounts to proof. It clearly doesn't. I don't know what else I can say to this. Why is this illogical?

You ignore it, and just move on to invent more stories, without addressing anything that I've had to say.

I'm not ignoring it. The stories are, as I just said, counter examples to what you're claiming. In my book, that is addressing your questions.

I'm confident in your imaginations ability to keep pumping out stories, and I haven't the desire to keep knocking them down

You haven't knocked any of them down and continuing to claim that to be the case is not going to change matters.

this conversation has long since lost any amount of productivity

At least there's something we can agree on.

I don't want you to admit you are wrong to me, I don't need an ego boost, or anything. I do hope that you will examine what I've said and give it some thought, and perhaps read some more professional opinions on epistomology. I am not the most articulate, or friendliest of people. I am often forceful, and inspire more confrontation than is necessary, making people less likely to listen to me.

Fine. I have examined what you've said and I have given it some thought. I see a lot of claims along the lines of "yeah, but that's not evidence", with little to nothing to back it up. I will look into these things you suggest though. Perhaps I will find someone to explain to me why my interpretation of the dictionary definition of the word evidence is wrong.

So clearly I can't convince you of this no matter what, so I would just suggest that you search out more informed opinions, and more eloguent and articulate explanations than I can offer.

I wish you luck with that.

Clearly (I would say that's because you're talking from the wrong orifice, but that's just me). And thank you for the luck wishes.

I hope you don't think I've skipped over anything in your post. I also hope you don't also think I'm still making up stories to gloss over some lack of understanding.

27. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #173718 by Ty_Webb on May 1, 2008 at 6:59 am

So a jawbone isn't evidence? Wow. Whatever. What on earth is evidence if not information? Next you'll be telling me that a fingerprint on a knife handle is not evidence either. It's just information that places that knife in a certain person's hand.

Clearly you were right in your post 82 where you said "evidence ... depends on the person".

I had a look at the thread you linked to. It's six pages long and no one on it is called Mitchell Gilks or anything obviously related. I have better things to do than read six pages of your argumentation anyway.

So, in summary, I concede. You're obviously right. Obviously jawbones don't count as evidence of the creature they came from. Obviously testimony doesn't count as evidence. Obviously I'm stupid because I don't have a clue what you think evidence is. If you do come back, could you spare me a moment to give me one example of something that would constitute evidence for something, so I can at least get an idea of what on earth you're talking about.

The way I think it works is someone makes a claim - say liopleurodon was somewhere up to 11 metres long. Someone else says "what evidence do you have for your claim?" They say "well, I have a fossilised jawbone that is 1.5 metres long. I estimate, based on other animals in the same class that the animal is roughly seven times the length of its jawbone, so it's approximately 10.5 metres long."

Apparently though, I'm wrong and the jawbone is not evidence at all, it's direct information. So please help me out and tell me what would be evidence.

28. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #173670 by Ty_Webb on May 1, 2008 at 5:13 am

Well, I think I quite clearly demonstrated that one of your three comments needn't be the case. You say:

Either claims are evidence that can establish proof after enough is accumulated, or they aren't evidence.

Well. I don't agree. You just continuing to ignore my comments and assert that this is true and asking me to give you a break is pointless. You haven't done anything at all to demonstrate that this is the case. It's the law of diminishing returns. It's like saying I can sell a pack of cigarettes for five quid, therefore I can sell a trillion packs for five trillion quid. It's bollocks.

Another analogy, since you seem to struggle so hard to understand. A jawbone is evidence of what an animal looks like. Suppose we find a jawbone. That gives us evidence of what it looks like. Suppose we find a million identical jawbones. We still have no better idea of what it looks like than we did after we found the first one. Your question is the same as:

How many jawbones do we need to find to have proof of what the animal looked like? Since there's no number of jawbones that equates to proof, we have one of the following three things must be true:

1) Jawbones are not evidence
2) My (your) definition of proof is incorrect
3) Some number of jawbones does equate to proof

Well, which is it?

You ignored everything I said and just reiterated your last post, asked me to give you a break and accused me of ignoring all your points. Pots and kettles spring to mind.

Now either show me why each new piece of evidence which is the same as the one before it has to have the same evidential value or give it up.

Oh, and two things. 2 2=4 is not really proven as such. Maths has axioms - sets of laws. There are mathematical proofs that rely on those axioms that are a lot stronger than just "proven" because we happen to define them that way. Like say Fermat's last theorem: x^n y^n = z^n has no integral solutions for n>2. That's not true just because anyone defined it as such. It's true, because based on the rules of mathematics as defined, it's true. The proof I believe runs to over 200 pages. But I digress.

Lastly, you should get firefox. It tells you when you spell things wrong.

I'm still arguing this because I'm stubborn and I think I'm right. What can I say, my mother is Australian, so it's in my blood.

29. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #173488 by Ty_Webb on April 30, 2008 at 8:04 pm

Great, just great. I just spent half an hour typing out a response and the damn thing disappeared as I clicked on post. Pissflaps. Right, try again.

I'm sorry, I missed your question.

First of all, I'm not sure that anything out of an abstract like mathematics can be conclusively proven. Leaving that aside for now.

Allow me to have a go at summarising your case if I may?

It's like you think that a piece of evidence has a value (let's say 1 for argument's sake) and that in order for proof to be achieved, the sum of all the evidence needs to make some other value (say 10). Then, if I claim that a claim is evidence, I am assigning it some positive value (whatever it is doesn't matter). Then, if we add lots of little bits of evidence together, the sum of all those things equaling ten means we have proof. Then, there must be some number of claims that will add up to ten, so that proof could be had by simply compiling a certain number of claims. Since there is no such number (the appeal to people fallacy), the value of the claim must be zero otherwise it would eventually get to ten.

Is that a fair representation? It seems to be what you're asking. But that's not what I'm saying.

Your question was I believe "how many claims would constitute proof?"

My answer is that on their own, I don't believe that there is any number of people claiming something that would make it proven.

So, to go back to my analogy with the numbers, what if, instead of each extra claim adding onto the first one, we have the first claim given a value of 1. The second claim (independently) given a value of 1. Then all further claims given no more points. In that case, 1,000,000,000 claims would still only make 2 points and you'd still need a significant amount of further pieces of evidence to make the proof requirement of 10. That first claim is still worth a point though and therefore quite reasonably counts as evidence.

To summarise, I think that lots of different types of evidence are required to be at the proof stage and no amount of claiming will get you there.

A for instance for you:

Suppose there is an archaeological dig. The team doing the dig find something and piece together what they have and come up with two possible explanations for what happened. Each explanation is considered equally likely. Then the team find a notebook in the dig (it's not a very old dig obviously, but bear with me). In the notebook, someone has written that the second explanation is the correct one (because they were there at the time and saw it happen). According to you, both of those explanations remain equally likely. To my mind, the second explanation has just become more likely than the first. Do you disagree?

I hope you think I've answered your question this time. Let me know if not and I'll try again.

With respect to your final line, your mistake is in the mistaken assumption that I'm claiming that all bits of evidence are additive. Unless I've misinterpreted your point, in which case, my apologies.

Right, I'm copying it first this time. Grrr.

30. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #173361 by Ty_Webb on April 30, 2008 at 5:00 pm

If a claim were evidence independent of who uttered it, then the claim of a liar is equal evidence as the claim of a truthful person. We both know this isn't true.

Where have I said anything like that? You judge the credibility of claim-based evidence by looking at who is claiming it. The claim is evidence. The credibility of that evidence depends on who claims it. The bible IMO is not particularly credible because the people who wrote it had a vested interest in it. But, and again this is just my opinion lest you accuse me of assertion again, it is still evidence. Like someone said before, this is just semantics.

31. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #173247 by Ty_Webb on April 30, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Thank you for your post Mitchell Gilks.

The following is all just my opinion on how things should work. I'm not telling you to take anything at face value.

Where I'm coming from is that if you did have grapefruit for breakfast, then, to my mind at least, your claim to have had grapefruit for breakfast is evidence of that. It's the best I'm gonna get assuming I don't intend inspecting your stomach contents or the aftermath (not particularly high up my list of things I want to do, so not to worry). It doesn't prove it, but it makes it more likely.

But, suppose I then later bumped into your wife (for argument's sake) and I asked her what you had for breakfast. If she said you had grapefruit, then it strikes me as now quite likely that you did have grapefruit. I have two sources that independently corroborate each other, which makes them much more believable.

Take the story of Moses and the Red Sea as an example. It's written about in the bible, so that's where we start looking at it. Then, you might think, okay, suppose that did happen, what else would you expect to see? Perhaps some evidence from the Egyptian side that the Jews were there for 40-odd years and then escaped. So we look at the Egyptian historical record at the time. There isn't any record of any group of Jews being enslaved there and there isn't any record of a troublemaker (from an Egyptian perspective) named Moses. Conclusion - not good for the bible story. It's uncorroborated, when we'd expect it to be, so it's unlikely to be true.

The thing is when someone says "presumably", they are opening themselves up to attack from the other side. If you don't accept the bible as evidence, then you can't use it to attack their position. If, on the other hand, you accept the bible as part of the discussion, then you can attack it every which way but loose.

The fact that it's extremely poor evidence of the Christian faith doesn't make it not evidence. At least in my opinion. Feel free to disagree as I'm sure you will. I'm out.

32. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #173131 by Ty_Webb on April 30, 2008 at 12:06 pm

For someone who accuses me of not reading, you're doing a pretty good job of it yourself.

Empirical, testable, reproducible and examinable are examples of properties of the evidence. I said, I think quite clearly, that that wasn't what I was asking you for. How hard can it be? I was asking for a concrete example of an actual physical, tangible thing that you might accept as such empirical, testable, reproducible and examinable evidence.

I'll try putting it another way in case that one wasn't clear. I'm not asking you to define evidence. You've done that. I'm asking you for an example of it.

So:

evidence of evolution should be empirical, testable etc.

An example of evidence for evolution would be the similarity between the defunct bits of DNA in chimps and humans.

See? Two completely different things.

33. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #173089 by Ty_Webb on April 30, 2008 at 10:22 am

Try again (typed this once and lost it)

Yes, I can read, thank you.

My question wasn't a question of the sort of properties that the evidence might have, but rather an example of something tangible that you might accept as evidence. Your Sam Harris quote would be an example of this. Your "I'm open to suggestions" is where I'm coming from. I don't know of anything that you might accept. I was seeking a suggestion from you.

Anyway, forget that. Do you believe that there are people around who believe in the divinity of Jesus? If so, what's your evidence?

34. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #172895 by Ty_Webb on April 30, 2008 at 6:46 am

Okay, evidence is anything which might sway the possibility of a claim's veracity.

If you have a scientific claim, then there are various ways that you come up with evidence for it. Fine. When trying to look at whether something happened or not a long time ago, there isn't any scientific evidence of it. Historians deal with this all the time. As far as I know, all there is is the written word.

If someone asked you, from scratch, to determine whether or not the whole Jesus thing happened, would you or would you not include the bible in your investigation?

One last time, what would you accept as evidence of any of the things claimed to have happened in the bible?

35. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #172598 by Ty_Webb on April 29, 2008 at 7:08 pm

I agree that a lot of evidence is required to believe the story in the bible and that there isn't much around. Your statement "The more controversial the claim, the more evidence would be required to accept it" is a valid one. You weigh up ALL the evidence. Every bit of it and the fact that one bit of it on its own proves nothing does not mean that that one bit is not evidence. It's most certainly not proof.

To clarify, I think the bible is a collection of folk stories and is probably fiction, but to claim that it's not evidence is false. It's flimsy and unconvincing and uncorroborated and so relatively easily dismissed, but it remains evidence.

Suppose for one second that it did actually happen as described (humour me). What would you accept as evidence of it? Or in fact, even if it didn't happen, what would you accept as evidence that it did?

36. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #172571 by Ty_Webb on April 29, 2008 at 6:34 pm

Mitchell Gilks,

Why do courts allow testimony? Isn't that just assertion? If I'm accused of something and someone says they saw me do it, would you think that makes it more likely I did it or that it has no impact whatsoever on the likelihood of my guilt?

And, do you believe in Socrates? How about Plato? What scientific evidence do you have for their existence?

37. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #172356 by Ty_Webb on April 29, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Ty_Webb,
Allegations are not evidence.
Heresay is not evidence.
Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence.
Personal revelation is not evidence.
Anecdotes are not evidence.
Rumors are not evidence.
Wild speculation is not evidence.
Wishful thinking is not evidence.
Illogical conclusions are not evidence.
Disproved statements are not evidence.
Logical fallacies are not evidence.
Poorly designed/executed experiments are not evidence.
Experiments with inconclusive results are not evidence.
Experiments that are not and cannot be duplicated by others are not evidence.
Dreams are not evidence.
Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence.
Experiments whose methodology is not open for scrutiny are not evidence.
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence.
Information that is only knowable by a privileged few is not evidence.
Information that cannot be falsified is not evidence.
Information that cannot be verified is not evidence.
Information that is ambiguous is not evidence.

So, your comment that the bible is is a form of evidence is incorrect. It is merely a collection of "unsubstantiated claims". It is fiction

While this is undoubtedly true in some of the examples above, it's not true in all of them. It is slightly more likely that a man called Jesus who some people believed to be the messiah existed around 2000 years ago as a result of the bible's existence than without it. To put it another way, the probability that Jesus existed if there were no bible is pretty close to zero. The probability that Jesus existed given the bible, but no other supporting evidence is still I think fairly close to zero, but slightly higher. To the extent that the existence of the bible changes the chances of Jesus having existed, it is evidence.

I think you're confusing proof and evidence.

38. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #172074 by Ty_Webb on April 29, 2008 at 7:54 am

And despite the complete lack of evidence for this 'greatest show on earth'

That's a little unfair. The bible does count as evidence, so there isn't a complete lack of evidence. It's very poor evidence and there are far better explanations for it than it's accurate. It's also lacking in any form of corroborating evidence, but it is still at least in some sense evidence in itself.

As to the article, I'm not too sure why, but I love the use of the word "individual". It feels like such a human term to me I guess.

When I see a picture like this, it also makes me feel a little sad that the orangutan's consciousness is unable to share its thoughts with us. That ability is unfortunately wasted on a large number of humans, like Mr Stein for example.

39. Religion a figment of human imagination

Comment #171465 by Ty_Webb on April 28, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Interesting idea. I always figured religion to be the result of a lack of imagination. The inability to imagine what being dead must be like resulted in creating the various stories about what happens when we die.

40. Mount Vernon schools to hire investigator in Bible case

Comment #168800 by Ty_Webb on April 25, 2008 at 11:13 am

I don't see what the problem is with teaching the meaning of Good Friday and Easter. Where's the harm in "Good Friday is the day Christians believe that Jesus was sacrificed for mankind's sins and Easter is the day that everyone found out actually he wasn't sacrificed at all, he merely popped out for a couple of days."

I would have no objection to this at all. I would however be hoping that the teacher in question will get to spend some time as a guest of the state for burning crosses into children's arms.

41. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168760 by Ty_Webb on April 25, 2008 at 10:37 am

jac12358

Gravity is far better understood today than by Newton. True, it is very elusive, but so is everything ehrn reduced to fundamental forces. Even electromagnetism is a bear, what with its photons "always" travelling the speed of light regardless of the viewer, and being both particles and waves.

Or, do we understand the what/how/where/when/why of the universe? In other words, is the universe easier to explain than gravity, and if not, does it not follow that anything within that universe, being part of it, is equally unknown? We know things only locally and in mundane practical terms. Describing a bouncing ball does not help explain the universe, but it is silly to conclude that the description of the bouncing ball is "incompatible" or "mutually exclusive" with describing the universe.

Likewise, quantum mechanics and relativity also describe the "local" phenomena they are observed to describe and predict. That a single theory is desired does not mean it is "out there" as anyone who has said the mantra "reality owes nothing to our hopes and assumptions." Sure, it would be nice, but would a carpenter bemoan the use of both a hammer and screwdriver imagining a more "perfect" tool that can do both jobs without being mutually exclusive?

As far as gravity is concerned, we know it exists. We can predict how it will make two bodies interact and indeed we can do this significantly more accurately now, courtesy of relativity than Newton could have done. We understand pretty much perfectly I think what the results of gravity are.

To this point, gravity and evolution are basically at the same level. However, in the case of evolution, we then have a poweful explanation as to how and why it happens. In the case of gravity though, no one knows how it works. Quantum theory and relativity don't explain what makes two massive objects attractive to each other (I'm sure there's a better way to put that, but I can't think of it right now), or at least, not in a way that is true for every instance.

I'm not saying that as a result, we should throw out either of them. Both are, as I said, fantastically predictive and hence extremely useful. And both are wrong. But it doesn't stop them being useful and being used.

My point was never that gravity is not understood at all, or that we should throw out those theories, but rather that questioning evolutionary theory is more stupid than questioning gravitational theory.

42. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168507 by Ty_Webb on April 25, 2008 at 7:16 am

I find myself feeling somewhat sorry for TTID here. He's clearly so far out of his depth, he doesn't know what to do. Consequently, I'm going to have a go at answering the questions for him.

Q1. What does ID postulate?

Hypothesis - That the universe and everything in it was created by some kind of intelligent being. Probably what Christians call God, since if it's anything else, then we probably should be calling it God. That's all c. one hundred thousand billion billion stars and presumably a not dissimilar number of planets. This designer must be VERY intelligent, seeing as how it's managed to create lifeforms, and a universe, both of which are way beyond anything that we are currently capable of, so, pretty much by definition, it must be more intelligent than me.

Q2. What predictions does ID make?

Well, here we need to use our imagination for a moment. If ID were true, what might we expect to see? Well, for a start, if I were doing this (and capable of it) I wouldn't waste any of the information structure that I chose to use. Which would imply that there should be no junk DNA whatsoever. Otherwise, it would be like writing an operating system for a computer that is 500 gigabytes in size, but only actually uses maybe 1 gigabyte of those for anything useful. What a waste of effort and indeed disc space. I would also predict that the bodies of the lifeforms created should be efficient. For example, I would expect the optic nerve to come out of the eye in a manner that doesn't create a blindspot. I would also not expect to see vestigial organs. Further, if we also make the assumption that this designer is beneficent, then we should expect not to see viruses or dangerous bacteria. And, there wouldn't be any wasps (vicious creatures that so far as I can see serve no apparent purpose other than irritation). Is that five predictions? I think so.

Q3. Can you come up with any peer-reviewed papers in support?

Well, no I can't. Cos there aren't any. What I can do is look at the predictions and see whether they are correct or not.

1. Junk DNA - exists, therefore prediction incorrect
2. The eye - we have a blind spot, therefore prediction incorrect
3. vestigial organs? - Check. Therefore prediction incorrect
4. viruses and dangerous bacteria? - Ebola, lassa, E. coli, influenza, etc. Therefore prediction incorrect
5. Wasps - definitely exist, therefore prediction incorrect

Searching back to my GCSE science stuff, when a hypothesis makes predictions and they turn out to be false, the hypothesis is false. I'll leave everyone else to their own opinions on this one though.

43. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168248 by Ty_Webb on April 24, 2008 at 7:44 pm

And for the record, gravity is one of the least understood things going. No one knows what it is. The two major theories of the physical world (being quantum theory and relativity) are mutually exclusive. They can't both be right. Yet, when each one deals with its own particular specialism (the very small for quantum theory and the not very small for relativity) both come up with predictions that are mind-bogglingly accurate. One analogy I heard for QM is that its accuracy is like predicting the distance from LA to New York to within the width of a human hair.

Evolution is better supported than either of these two.

44. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168244 by Ty_Webb on April 24, 2008 at 7:35 pm

If evolution theory is so proven, why are there so many highly respected educated scientists who claim otherwise. Why the big debate? I don't see much conflict in gravity or other sciences. If your answer is, there are only a few and they are not highly regarded, I must admit you would be avoiding the question.

TTID. What you have to say here is actually of some mild import. You came here, I believe, as a result of having seen the movie Expelled. As I understand it, the theme of Expelled is that science is brushing this whole debate under the carpet and that scientists who dare to suggest that ID is correct are being persecuted.

It strikes me as unlikely that "highly respected" and "persecuted" are compatible with one another. So, no doubt you think Expelled is utter BS on the grounds that there are lots of highly respected scientists who support ID and that there is in fact "big debate", rather than the stifled debate that Stein and co whinge about.

Which is it?

45. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167052 by Ty_Webb on April 23, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Peacebeuponme

I would rather say "Given that there are replicators (which replicate with sub-perfect fidelity)..." Avoids lots of discussion about what "life" is.

Sounds reasonable. TTID, feel free to answer whichever one you find less complicated.

46. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167035 by Ty_Webb on April 23, 2008 at 2:57 pm

TheTruthID, a really (hopefully) easy question for you, which hopefully you can answer.

Is it important for someone to have a fundamental understanding of exactly how a car is made in order to drive it? Do you need to know what the ignition timing is in order to press the accelerator?

The problem with your multi-millionaire analogy is that the theory of evolution is saying, "given that there is life, what do we expect to happen to it", so in the same way, you might have "given that I have a million dollars, how can I become a multi-millionaire?". Specifically for the question at hand, it doesn't matter where the given bit came from, it just is. Or are you claiming that there is in fact not life on earth?

47. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166473 by Ty_Webb on April 23, 2008 at 9:06 am

Seems like a perfect opportunity to add the definition of "split the winnings" from Roger's Profanisaurus (a wonderful book by the way, although not for the faint of heart):

To halt the "laying of a cable" half way through. As in:

And after four days without movement, Job took up his toilet and great was his relief. But even as he released his burden there came a voice and it was the Lord. And the Lord spoke in a loud voice saying Come unto Me Job. And Job replied saying Oh God, what is it this time, for I have only just sat down. And great was the wrath of the Lord. And He commanded Job to split the winnings and come now unto Him. And great was Job's discomfort. (from 'The Book of Job',Ch.9)

48. Secrets of bird flight revealed

Comment #115753 by Ty_Webb on January 24, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Sorry mate, but if people are going to revel in their ignorance and stupidity, closing their ears to education then what can I do? Learning isn't hard - there's books and internet and papaers and all sorts of shit to open the mind.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=501748&in_page_id=1811
OK, it's the Daily Mail - sorry, hard to find a decent ref at such short notice. But is he can do it, so can other ignarants. If they wish to revel in stupidity and superstition, that's their lookout. India and China are just waiting in the wings...

I don't disagree with you, but what you can do is impress upon journalists to use accurate phraseology. There are lots of people out there who simply don't know better. Articles like these may give them the opportunity to learn better, but phrases like that one don't help. That's why I said every little helps. It is only little, but if it helps one person get the right idea, then it was worth it.

49. Secrets of bird flight revealed

Comment #115664 by Ty_Webb on January 24, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Only if you're not sure how evolution works.

Right, and what's the proportion of the US public for whom that is the case? And then, what's the proportion of those people who will later have the benefit of your wisdom as to what it should have said? I think it's fairly safe to say that more people will have had a misconception confirmed by the article than will have started believing in evolution.

50. Secrets of bird flight revealed

Comment #115633 by Ty_Webb on January 24, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Professor Dial said that dinosaurs may have evolved wings to help propel them over rocks and other obstacles that littered their terrain.

That sentence bothers me. It seems to imply that dinosaurs evolved wings on purpose. I know it's longer, but I'd rather that they said something like "wing-like appendages would have helped the dinosaurs to propel themselves over rocks etc, which would have given them an evolutionary advantage." Mealy-mouthed I know, but every little helps.