Do mimsy atheists gyre and gimble in the wabe?

[Pippy]

Hey,

@Kyu: This is number 6 I think, promise to stop after this one...

I understand that he could have chosen any phrase... But he chose one. Please, if you would be so kind as to explain the difference between a 'test-condition' and an 'end-result'? I understand that the actual phrase selected makes up a test condition, and am not disagreeing with that. But that one test condition was chosen, makes it, as far as intent, a end result of the test. Conclusion, if you will. Therefor, we could be both right.

And Adrian. Thank you for using even more colourful descriptors of your opinion of my state of logical thinking. You already know how much I look forward to reading those. I assure you, as I did before, that I read not only the Wiki page years ago, but a reference to the experiment, and the book itself as well. It seems you are having trouble learning a thing about the person you choose to argue with. I just appreciate the irony of people telling me I am not listening in a way that makes it seems like they are not listening. Only a creature as miraculous and complex as us humans could do something so grand.

And may I thank you again, for now posting a quote from the wiki I politely attempted to tell you I did not need a link posted too. As I have said, I am familiar with that wiki page, thank you. I hope you believe me when I insist that I feel I understand all the points you made. In fact, almost perfectly, they were the same points I made. But somehow I doubt you will assume that I took the time to read and try to understand, regardless.

I am not at all upset by your disagree-al, but I am disappointed in your quality of argument. I feel like you spend far too much energy belittling, acting superior and all-knowing, and not enough on polite, civilized discourse for the fun of it. I mean, you wrote a lot more this time, but still said only 'I think pippy is a big idiot' over and over. I did not hear a very clear counter point, although it was a much better effort.

I will continue to be as calm and reserved as I can, since this is all very unimportant. Please, if you could consider being a little more polite and constructive with your debates. Otherwise I will have to treat the conversation as completed, for the sake of everyone we share this space with. Thank you very much for your time. It is all the more valuable when you share it with someone you think unworthy.

-Pip

[Tiberius]

Oh come on now! You are so good at playing the victim! True, I made one (minor) attack on what I perceived was your unwillingness to read the article (as it did indeed answer all your points), and the rest of my argument was clean. Literally 6 paragraphs of pure argument, answering your points, no insults or jabs, and you completely ignore it, instead trying to use a barrage of insults yourself!

Ok, so let's try this again:

You say you find "the experiment to be strange and almost senseless" when admitting that Dawkins said it was not meant to be an accurate portrayal of evolution, rather an artificial selector. The aim of the experiment was:

Dawkins intends this example to illustrate a common misunderstanding of evolutionary change, i.e. that DNA sequences or organic compounds such as proteins are the result of atoms "randomly" combining to form more complex structures. In these types of computations, any sequence of amino acids in a protein will be extraordinarily improbable (this is known as Hoyle's fallacy). Rather, evolution proceeds by hill climbing.
Dawkins then goes on to show that a process of cumulative selection can take far fewer steps to reach any given target

(emphasis mine)

Still senseless? Still strange? Somehow I don't think so. Dawkins was only showing that evolution wasn't a pure "random" method, and that selection had to be a part if it was going to get anywhere. The mechanism by which evolution selects is called "natural selection", and Dawkins program, whilst artificial, was alluring to the fact that natural selection would be doing all the selecting.

As for your assertion that the program was "fixed", you are half-right. Of course, the aim of the program was to get from a random set of letters to a sentence (which was pre-chosen). The point of the program was it was showing a possible path of evolution from a retrospective angle. In other words, it was not trying to show evolution of a random set of letters, but was taking a fixed set of letters, and saying "ok, can we get to this from a random set?". The answer is yes. By selecting the best mutations (which is what natural selection does in essence), new organisms are formed.

If you think about it for more than a few seconds, you will realise that if Dawkins hadn't set a fixed end-point, the program would be (as you said earlier) "strange and senseless". The program wouldn't be able to tell what was a "good" mutation (since it had no environment to adapt to), and so you would simply get a load of random strings. Each one would be a valid product of natural selection, but without an environment to compare them to, you cannot tell which strings are successful organisms and which are not. An environment must be used, and in this case the environment was the string "Methinks it is like a weasel".

Evolution always aims to adapt species to their environment in the best way possible. With the species "salfjbadjgbadgajgbaj" and the environment "Methinks it is like a weasel", the best adaptations will invariably produce the end result of "Methinks it is like a weasel".

In real life, there are a multitude of environments of course, which is why we have such diversity of life; however this program was very simple, with one environment; one "aim" for evolution to get to.

---

Can you try and actually answer my point this time please?

if you cannot, just walk away. Nobody will think any less of you for it, but please don't just make up blatant lies like "[Adrian] said only 'I think pippy is a big idiot' over and over". I didn't. I said you evidently hadn't read the article since the answers to your questions were there...in it! I then proceeded to present the refutations to your arguments!

Now either be a good sport and write an actual post that responds, or go away. People who do not discuss things and simply lie to try and get out of an argument are not welcome on what is (after all) a discussion forum.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Test Condition: The point at which one considers the test to have achieved its goal or run its course.
End Result: could be the same but is not necessarily ... the test may not have achieved the test condition.

IOW the test could be entirely free-form, it could be testing for ANY intelligible set of words, several distinct phrases or just one (as happened to be the case) ... the test condition is entirely independent from the end result and the governing parameters (rules) of the test and only minor changes in the checking component of the test would be able to check for any of the possible test conditions I suggested.

In short the test was not designed to produce that result it was designed to see if that result was produced by the test ... the difference is small but highly significant, it's much like the difference between teleology and open-ended research.

Kyu

[Ryft]

So did you actually read the book, or just critiques of the book?

I have read the book. And critiques of the book. And some of Dawkins' responses to those critiques. Unlike so many people, I don't digest material from only one side of an issue. But I have also spent years studying philosophy and know how to evaluate arguments. That is, I know how to think; and I bring such faculties to books like this one.

I haven't read any of Dawkins ...

When he writes on science, he is very good and recommendable. But when he expands into the arenas of philosophy and religion, he is absolutely embarrassing. As a qualified biologist he should stick to writing scientifically about biology, and leave metaphysical arguments to those actually qualified in the field.

The idea of making up an invisible Jewish entity that created the universe speaking magical words doesn't seem scientific to me.

It isn't scientific. But then no one pretends it is. When it comes to the origins of the universe, no answer is scientific—because the very nature of the case (the absence of a space-time manifold) precludes scientific inquiry. (I am choosing to ignore your fallacious prejudicial language, other than identifying it.)

Mr. Dawkins astutely describes faith and the character of God in the bible in a factual, based-on-the-bible, manner.

False. The Bible does not state anywhere that faith is "blind trust" in the absence of evidence, a "process of non-thinking" that is "evil." And the Bible does not state anywhere that God is petty, it does not state he is unjust, it does not state that he is sadomasochistic, etc. The Bible does, however, describe circumstances involving God which Dawkins evaluates ethically, arriving at such conclusions. His descriptions are not derived from biblical statements; they are derived from his ethical evaluations of biblical statements—i.e., "This can only be biographical material about Dawkins, describing his take on the Judeo-Christian God." That you agree with his ethical evaluations is only so much biographical information about you.

It is a Straw Man fallacy precisely because his attack is launched against something constructed by his ethical evaluations, creating "the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition and refuting it." If Dawkins wishes to critique the God of Judeo-Christianity, he should restrict his statements about God to actual biblical statements about God, not his evaluation thereof. And if he should do that, his list would be completely emptied (e.g., it is not 'ethnic cleansing' or 'homicidal' to attack and expel foreign forces who invaded your country, defying its sovereignty and government). Dawkins' list presupposes autonomy of not only mankind but the earth itself, which stands in contradiction to what the Bible states.

Nowadays it seems that an advanced course in theology is needed to comprehend the deeper meaning of the Christian God, to find the really, really, real Christian God.

Certainly. But that is not any kind of criticism because such is the case for pretty much any subject. An advanced course in astrophysics is needed to deeply comprehend the structure and nature of the cosmos. Who do you think would have a more accurate understanding about the cosmos: (a) a high school dropout, or (b) an astrophysicist with an advanced degree? Now, we cannot all take advanced courses in this or that field, but that is why we rely on those who have. If I am going to speak about 'X', I had better either have a sufficiently advanced education about it or rely on people who do. When it comes to speaking about God, Dawkins clearly had neither the former nor bothered to interact with the latter.

Dawkins is no more interpreting God than any of the thousands of Christian denominations.

And he is basing his interpretation upon... what? Theological ignorance, which he proudly admits. That is the salient point.

I haven't read the articles directly [on alleged Bible contradictions] ...

Says it all. Thank you.

Nor does he provide one single piece of evidence that proves the FSM-belief "as false with strong contradictory evidence" either! Shocking!

Um... <blinks>... no. That is not shocking. See, the book is not about the FSM.

No matter what subject your book is about (the FSM or otherwise), if you inform your readers that it is a delusion, which you set forth as "persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence," then people will sort of expect you to show that it is a persistent false belief using strong contradictory evidence. If you say you're going to deliver X, your readers will sort of expect you to deliver X. People are like that.

If it was about the FSM; if it was called 'The FSM' delusion and how it's delusional to literally believe that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created and governs the universe; and, just like with God, he failed to provide evidence of absence (for what there's absence of evidence of), would you also be saying that you couldn't call actually believing in the FSM delusional because there's no evidence against its existence either?

Dawkins asserts, correctly, that belief in the existence of X is delusional when it is a (i) persistent (ii) false belief held (iii) in the face of strong contradictory evidence. Let's break that down. It is the presence of contradicting evidence that renders the belief "X exists" as false. Now, someone might be unaware of this evidence which contradicts his belief that X exists, so it is not yet a delusion. What makes it a delusion is when he is faced with this contradicting evidence but persists in the belief anyway. (And no, it does not matter what you substitute 'X' with.)

If Dawkins fails to present evidence that contradicts "X exists," then he fails to prove that belief therein is false, much less delusional. "What if points to the absence of evidence for 'X exists' as evidence that X does not exist?" someone might ask (as it seems you have). Then he would be engaging in the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, which would get counted among the other fallacies he commits. To argue that something is false because it hasn't been proven true is a very basic fallacy.

So if I believe there is a monster under my bed, is that not delusional because you have no evidence to disprove it, because I can just say it's invisible, inaudible and completely intangible and undetectable by any means whatsoever?

Sort of like the invisible, intangible, undetectable 'memes' Dawkins pretends is science?

Belief in monsters under your bed is delusional only if contradicting evidence proves it false and you continue to believe it anyway. If the monster has the properties you assert, I would tell you, "Don't worry about this fiendish creature. You said it cannot be seen, nor felt, nor even heard. He is therefore of no consequence to anyone."

Instead of presenting clear evidence for their divine claims, they merely repeat Christian dogma and try to discredit the approach and person of Dawkins.

Non-sequitur. Presenting clear evidence for divine claims is irrelevant in a critique of Dawkins' claims.

This is quite basic. The old trick on the burden of proof again.

It is not much of a trick. Dawkins shouldered the burden of proof and failed to meet it.

How did he shoulder the burden of proof? By staking the claim that belief in the existence of God is a delusion. Does he succeed at meeting this burden by assessing the state of evidence for belief in God, as you allude to? Absolutely not, because even if there is no evidence whatsoever for belief X, that does not prove it delusional. Remember, Dawkins affirmed—correctly—that a delusion is a false belief persistently held in the face of evidence that contradicts it. That is a very basic element of the definition: that the belief is false. "Not proven true" does not mean "proven false" (see argumentum ad ignorantiam). Yet proving that X is false is precisely what Dawkins' claim required of him.

If he cannot meet the burden of proof for this claim, he should have made a different one. And again, Dawkins' arguments stand or fall under their own merits, not on whether someone else can argue successfully for theirs; i.e., it is not as if Dawkins is right unless proven wrong (the same aforementioned fallacy.)

Let me please add that, Arcanus, you have written an absolutely fantastic post about the topic. It was thorough, and intelligent.

I appreciate the compliment. Thank you. However, the complete trainwreck of his argument says nothing about him as a person. I do not think Dawkins is an asshole. Quite the contrary, I think he is a charming fellow and a very gifted writer. But he is a biologist, not a philosopher. When he writes outside his field, it is embarrassing.

What did you think about the 'Methinks it is like a weasel," thing?

I think it is closer to an argument for teleological evolution than anything else, given its target phrase, specified keys, and artificial selection process. But Dawkins is aware of its weakness and has said that the program was never intended to model biological evolution accurately. I think it's fine as far as it goes, but I do not suppose that it goes very far.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I haven't read the articles directly [on alleged Bible contradictions] ...

Says it all. Thank you.

No it doesn't because I further and VERY SPECIFICALLY qualified that remark you disingenuous [expletive deleted].

Kyu

[Ryft]

No it doesn't because I further and VERY SPECIFICALLY qualified that remark you disingenuous [expletive deleted].

Which my response linked to, yes, allowing anyone to verify. Quite disingenuous indeed! And like I said, "Says it all. Thank you."

[Edwardo Piet]

So if I believe there is a monster under my bed, is that not delusional because you have no evidence to disprove it, because I can just say it's invisible, inaudible and completely intangible and undetectable by any means whatsoever?

Belief in monsters under your bed is delusional only if contradicting evidence proves it false and you continue to believe it anyway. If the monster has the properties you assert, I would tell you, "Don't worry about this fiendish creature. You said it cannot be seen, nor felt, nor even heard. He is therefore of no consequence to anyone."

Well we disagree here then...!

You see I think that belief in 'a monster under my bed' in that case would be delusional...I don't have to disprove it...or provide strong contradictory evidence...because that's a negative proof fallacy if it's completely undetectable as I say! So it would mean that it's never delusional to believe in anything totally undetectable...no matter how complex and bizarre such a belief is...no matter how unnecessary accessories are postulated (providing they're all also undetectable) - even if there's zero evidence for them...no evidence at all...

So I think its totally reasonably to classify such a belief as a delusion simply because there's no evidence whatsoever for it...and that there should be evidence for this complex strangeness that is postulated.

So for exactly the same reason - I think belief in God (Or the FSM, or any other complexity that lacks any evidence whatsoever) is a delusion. Otherwise you could never call any completely undetectable belief delusional...no matter how crazy it is! simply because you can't prove a negative because it's a logical fallacy!!

So is it totally unreasonable to at least sometimes classify crazy complex beliefs that are delusional...- namely when they're undetectable...because this complexity lacks any evidence whatsoever yet the person in question just 'believes anyway'?!?! You couldn't really be much more sure (without being irrationally gnostic about it) that the FSM doesn't exist right? So wouldn't it be delusional to believe anyway because this complexity called the FSM lacks any evidence whatsoever...to go ahead and believe anyway...isn't that...well...delusional? (For example).

EvF

[Kyuuketsuki]

No it doesn't because I further and VERY SPECIFICALLY qualified that remark you disingenuous [expletive deleted].

Which my response linked to, yes, allowing anyone to verify. Quite disingenuous indeed! And like I said, "Says it all. Thank you."

You are disingenuous ... do you read base scientific papers on everything you have an opinion on? No ... I thought not! Is your view on some of those thing meaningless? Probably not.

That I have not read the original articles on some theological issues DOES NOT make my POV on some of these things any less valid especially considering I have dealt with them ad nauseum by proxy.

Kyu

[Pippy]

Hey,

Arcanus, another absolutely fantastic read. I quite appreciate your presence here, although I may be alone in my feelings. I find the things you write to be above my level of writing, but within my level of reading. I am happy to see you expound things I agree with using such clarity and composure. It only makes me wish I could have said it so well myself. You have presented a very, very strong argument for, as you say, Dawkins 'embarrassing' theological works. That is closer to the truth than my calling him an asshole. I do agree that he writes well, but the metaphysical books are just terrible, more so that they are touted as some atheistic 'bible'. You also made a good point about the 'Weasel test', that it is solid but does not go very far at all. That it isn't flawed, but that it is used sometimes to extrapolate far more from it than I think can be. That was what I was trying to say, but met some difficulty. If I could also commend your patience and control. It is hard with all the petty name-calling, but we do what we must. Again, thank you.
Kyu wrote:

You are disingenuous ... do you read base scientific papers on everything you have an opinion on? No ... I thought not! Is your view on some of those thing meaningless? Probably not.
That I have not read the original articles on some theological issues DOES NOT make my POV on some of these things any less valid especially considering I have dealt with them ad nauseum by proxy.

I think this is a weird little double standard. I agree with the first sentence completely, and if you replaced the word 'scientific' with 'theological' it would hold true for the second statement. That you have not read the articles on theology does not make you POV meaningless, but certainly does make it (at least a little) less valid. You have said the same to me about how I don't appreciate and keep up with the 'scientific journals' you love... To assume the rest of the world is the same as the little piece you have seen, to know all theists because of the few you have known is... ... what's the word... Disingenuous? And, on a final note, what is with the self-censoring?

And finally, Adrian. Thank you, for the third time in a row, for posting the wiki I assure you I have read (at the very least, 3 times now). I cannot continue such a discussion, whether or not anyone 'will think any less of me'. You can all think what you want, I will not base my decisions on that. I was taken aback by the brevity and rudeness of your first post. I have been treated to some very un-compelling argument, and immature behavior by you for a little while, and so I decided this was the breaking point. I told you as such, and you chose to act ruder and make a existent, but fickle rebut. I posed the weasel question as a tiny open thought for us to share what we think. Now I do not want to discuss this, or likely much else with you any longer, as I feel it is a waste of time (for both of us).

Now either be a good sport and write an actual post that responds, or go away. People who do not discuss things and simply lie to try and get out of an argument are not welcome on what is (after all) a discussion forum.

I would point out that this is circular. I posted some open ended questions and my personal thoughts, and you replied with disdain and disrespect. I called you on your behavior (since at that time you weren't arguing the point). You then slightly took part in the discussion, but maintained you self-superior and unimpressive attitude to the point of taking the wind out of what little conversation did exist in your second and third post. Then you accuse me, in your most recent post, of not 'discussing' of whining and 'playing the victim'. You need to take responsibility for the way people react to your provocation. You tout your 'pure argument' but every post you have posted included the wiki that I assured you in the first place I had read. In fact, your last post was the prior one copied and pasted. That is 'pure' argument? I know you will champion yourself as victor of this strange battle, since I resorted only to insults and personal attacks. You won't even see the reality of your own behavior, and how I only responded with similar (but still more polite and respectful). You can act however you like, but when I mirror you own actions, try not to loudly call me on it, it is (in the end) arguing against yourself. That is why I do it, it is a trick.

In short. You started it. Please, don't accuse me of lying, unless you can show solid proof. I take great, great offense to the insulation that I would tell untruths on purpose. I have very high moral standards you know... If you act more intelligent, and with more respect, I will be happy to return the favor. As far as this discussion, and the train wreck we are forcing upon the others who inhabit this site, I consider it fully closed. Thank you.

<sigh> I don't like to fight. I apologize beforehand for bothering every one else. And Adrian, let's agree to disagree and not make it so personal? We should try. Myself as well.

Thank you all, and take care,
-Pip

[Kyuuketsuki]

You are disingenuous ... do you read base scientific papers on everything you have an opinion on? No ... I thought not! Is your view on some of those thing meaningless? Probably not.
That I have not read the original articles on some theological issues DOES NOT make my POV on some of these things any less valid especially considering I have dealt with them ad nauseum by proxy.

I think this is a weird little double standard. I agree with the first sentence completely, and if you replaced the word 'scientific' with 'theological' it would hold true for the second statement. That you have not read the articles on theology does not make you POV meaningless, but certainly does make it (at least a little) less valid. You have said the same to me about how I don't appreciate and keep up with the 'scientific journals' you love... To assume the rest of the world is the same as the little piece you have seen, to know all theists because of the few you have known is... ... what's the word... Disingenuous? And, on a final note, what is with the self-censoring?

Er, I am expecting the VERY SAME standards for both .. try paying attention for once in your life Pip!

Kyu