Posts: 5706
Threads: 67
Joined: June 13, 2014
Reputation:
69
RE: How we determine facts.
January 6, 2015 at 9:34 pm
(This post was last modified: January 6, 2015 at 9:39 pm by Jenny A.)
Now suppose your bag has an infinite number of marbles. You start pulling out marbles and they are all white for hundreds and thousands of marbles. Can you ever prove that all of the marbles are white? No. But you do begin to have reason to be confident don't you? Now do you see why in the case of any well tested proposition, the burden of proof is on the person showing the contrary idea. In other words, if after 100,000 marbles had all come out of the bag white, the burden of proof would be on anyone claiming that there are black marbles in there somewhere.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
Posts: 1121
Threads: 53
Joined: February 5, 2013
Reputation:
15
RE: How we determine facts.
January 6, 2015 at 9:34 pm
(January 6, 2015 at 9:02 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -Our brains didn't evolve to seek truth.
My favourite quote of the last 12 months.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: How we determine facts.
January 6, 2015 at 9:45 pm
(January 6, 2015 at 9:20 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I think woody has discovered falsifiability.
I think Woodie has lost his marbles.....but then, there's nothing new in that.
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: How we determine facts.
January 6, 2015 at 9:46 pm
(This post was last modified: January 6, 2015 at 9:49 pm by Heywood.)
(January 6, 2015 at 9:26 pm)Rhythm Wrote: But you ability to claim knowledge is, understand? Just as explained before, the probability changes even though the color of the marbles does not. Because we're actually talking about two separate things here. The status of the marbles in the bag, and the status of our knowledge about the marbles in the bag.
also, I was going to suggest you read some Karl Popper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
You -are- describing one of the ways that human beings arrive at "facts", (whether those facts are true or false)- but there are other ways with greater degrees of provisional assurance. Your example, for example (the speed of light), wasn't arrived at solely through the process you are describing.
I agree that the speed of light is technically a bad example because it can be derived. However the equations use to derive the speed of light depend on constants which are not derived but are simply observed. Most people know what you are talking about when you say "speed of light". I doubt most people would know what I am talking about if I used "permeability of free space" instead. It is a technically wrong dumbed down example....but it makes the point.
Derived facts always end up being dependent on observations and one can never be 100% certain of their observations.
(January 6, 2015 at 9:34 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Now suppose your bag has an infinite number of marbles. You start pulling out marbles and they are all white for hundreds and thousands of marbles. Can you ever prove that all of the marbles are white? No. But you do begin to have reason to be confident don't you? Now do you see why in the case of any well tested proposition, the burden of proof is on the person showing the contrary idea. In other words, if after 100,000 marbles had all come out of the bag white, the burden of proof would be on anyone claiming that there are black marbles in there somewhere.
Kinda like the burden of proof is on the people who claim evolutionary systems can come into existence sans intellect when none has ever been observed to come into existence sans intellect....right?
Posts: 67172
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: How we determine facts.
January 6, 2015 at 9:50 pm
(This post was last modified: January 6, 2015 at 9:53 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
I'm sorry, did you shit and run into an entirely different thread? That's three times again now on the same count. I feel like the risen christ.....are you sure you aren't my sock? Your assertions are as empty here as they were there. They will remain so until you do work for all of the reasons described in that thread...and now in this one as well (just like the very first time, in a now forgotten third thread where you sold this same bullshit line).
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 5706
Threads: 67
Joined: June 13, 2014
Reputation:
69
RE: How we determine facts.
January 6, 2015 at 9:52 pm
(January 6, 2015 at 9:46 pm)Heywood Wrote: (January 6, 2015 at 9:26 pm)Rhythm Wrote: But you ability to claim knowledge is, understand? Just as explained before, the probability changes even though the color of the marbles does not. Because we're actually talking about two separate things here. The status of the marbles in the bag, and the status of our knowledge about the marbles in the bag.
also, I was going to suggest you read some Karl Popper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
You -are- describing one of the ways that human beings arrive at "facts", (whether those facts are true or false)- but there are other ways with greater degrees of provisional assurance. Your example, for example (the speed of light), wasn't arrived at solely through the process you are describing.
I agree that the speed of light is technically a bad example because it can be derived. However the equations use to derive the speed of light depend on constants which are not derived but are simply observed. Most people know what you are talking about when you say "speed of light". I doubt most people would know what I am talking about if I used "permeability of free space" instead. It is a technically wrong dumbed down example....but it makes the point.
Derived facts always end up being dependent on observations and one can never be 100% certain of their observations.
(January 6, 2015 at 9:34 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Now suppose your bag has an infinite number of marbles. You start pulling out marbles and they are all white for hundreds and thousands of marbles. Can you ever prove that all of the marbles are white? No. But you do begin to have reason to be confident don't you? Now do you see why in the case of any well tested proposition, the burden of proof is on the person showing the contrary idea. In other words, if after 100,000 marbles had all come out of the bag white, the burden of proof would be on anyone claiming that there are black marbles in there somewhere.
Kinda like the burden of proof is on the people who claim evolutionary systems can come into existence sans intellect when none has ever been observed to come into existence sans intellect....right?
How many designed evolutionary systems have you pulled out of the bag so far?
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: How we determine facts.
January 7, 2015 at 12:59 pm
(January 6, 2015 at 9:34 pm)ManMachine Wrote: (January 6, 2015 at 9:02 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -Our brains didn't evolve to seek truth.
My favourite quote of the last 12 months.
MM
There is a lot of truth to his claim. Evolution rewards behavior....not truth. It doesn't matter why the gazelle runs from a lion and survives to reproduce. The gazelles genes get passed on if it ran away from the lion because it "thought" the lion was playing a chasing game or if it ran away from the lion because it "thought" the lion would try to eat it.
Posts: 10675
Threads: 15
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
119
RE: How we determine facts.
January 7, 2015 at 1:13 pm
(January 6, 2015 at 9:46 pm)Heywood Wrote: Kinda like the burden of proof is on the people who claim evolutionary systems can come into existence sans intellect when none has ever been observed to come into existence sans intellect....right?
Whatever burden of proof is appropriate has been met as all the available physical evidence points to it.
Can you give an example of of an evolutionary system that came into existence WITH intellect that wasn't based on the observation of the pre-existing evolutionary system?
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
Posts: 13901
Threads: 263
Joined: January 11, 2009
Reputation:
82
RE: How we determine facts.
January 7, 2015 at 1:30 pm
(January 6, 2015 at 9:46 pm)Heywood Wrote: Kinda like the burden of proof is on the people who claim evolutionary systems can come into existence sans intellect when none has ever been observed to come into existence sans intellect....right?
Are you confusing evolutionary processes with breeding again?
Man intervening to effect changes in species is an evolutionary pressure it is not the process itself.
It is just like nuts getting harder so only birds with harder beaks can break them is not the process only a pressure.
No intellect is required for evolution just as no intelligence is required for a river to flow.
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: How we determine facts.
January 7, 2015 at 1:35 pm
(January 7, 2015 at 1:13 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Can you give an example of of an evolutionary system that came into existence WITH intellect that wasn't based on the observation of the pre-existing evolutionary system?
The game "Chinese Whispers" is an example of an evolutionary system created by intellects which was not based on the observation of the pre-existing evolutionary system.
|
