This video from David Wood seems to be pertinent to almost every discussion that takes place here. Perhaps it should be required viewing to any who would participate in this forum.
What do you think?
check it out.
https://youtu.be/YrGVeB_SPJg
peace
791 thoughts on “Scooby-Doo and the Case of the Silly Skeptic”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
So have we switched from ‘there is no theory of evolution’ to ‘there are lots’? Make your minds up what shadow you want to rage at this week.
phoodoo,
Do you find the refinements of science to be a weakness? Would it be better if it stopped changing round about 1650, and became Word?
This thread, otoh, is SO much more entertaining.
You mean theorieS are not hypotheses? TheorieS need not have a clear statement.
Do they need to exist?
If there are ten thousand theories of evolution, does that mean there is a “theory of evolution” Allan?
How do we choose which one it is?
What if the theories don’t agree with each other? Then what do you have?
Science.
I’m not sure I’m quite willing yet to agree that ID is science. 😉
To form a judgment about the likely truth or falsity of any proposition A. the correct procedure is to calculate the probability that A is true, conditional on all the evidence at hand.
– E.T. Jaynes
It all seems to come back to what one is willing to accept as evidence.
It would surprise me if certain parallels could not be found between anti-evolutionists and anti-theists.
If the evidence that science assembles does not provide certainty about which theories are true, what, then, does the evidence tell us? It seems entirely natural to say that science uses the evidence at hand to say which theories are probably true. This statement leaves room for science to be fallible and for the scientific picture of the world to change when new evidence rolls in. As sensible as this position sounds, it is deeply controversial.
– Elliott Sober
What’s a “skeptic” to do?
A rational decision about what to do requires more than the evidence you have and more than the degree of belief you have; a choice of action requires the input of values.
– Elliott Sober
Can that be true? The evidence you possess (or lack) about the existence of God and the degree of belief in God (or degree of lack of belief) is insufficient when it come to making a rational decision about what to do?
In the end, does it all come down to values (or lack thereof)?
What’s an anti-theist to do?
Mung,
Sober is perfectly right that choices involve values and not just assessment of evidence. I would say that this extends even to choice of which hypotheses to accept or reject.
The role of values in theory-choice has been well studied for a long time by philosophers of science, but their work is neglected by people who think that philosophy of science begins and ends with Quine, Popper, and Kuhn.
For the curious, I’d recommend work by Philip Kitcher, Helen Longing, and Heather Douglas.
phoodoo,
You could probbly work that one out for yourself. If there are ten thousand eggs, does that mean there is an egg?
For what purpose? Need more info.
Mung,
For that, I must credit the resident theists.
Mung,
Not rely so heavily on the musings of others.
One can pick up a second-hand copy of Douglas Futuyma’s ‘Evolution’ (I searched for ‘Evolutionary Biology’, perhaps that’s the UK edition) for less than 10 dollars inc. shipping from Amazon. I was hoping to find a ‘look inside’ version, but Chapter 1 provides a good account of what evolution is, and historical notes on the development of theory to become what is, in the present day, ‘The Theory Of Evolution (Consensus Vn)’.
I will happily donate $10 (that’s a shitload of money to me since those Brexit fuckwits screwed the exchange rate) to a charity of the purchaser’s choosing. I’d need to see a photo, with a current newspaper front page; you know how it is.
Holy cow Allan, you are going to argue that if you have lots of eggs, that means that there is an egg, and that is the equivalent of saying if you have thousands of different theories about evolution, then there is a “theory of evolution.” And you don’t understand the problem there?
How about this for one:
ID is a theory about how things have developed. So is that THE “theory of evolution?”
We certainly have no reason not to claim it is THE ONE since anything can be called the theory of evolution then right?
Imagine a biology class where the teacher says “the theory of evolution is true” and one students asks, “Which one?” and the teacher answers, “Well, who knows, take your pick, but certainly one of them must be?”
And imagine if someone here says they believe in the theory of evolution, Well heck, by your definition EVERYONE believes in the theory of evolution, because if someone believes that God created all of the living things in an instant, well, THAT too is a theory of evolution!
Allan Miller,
Wait, Douglas Futuyama’s is THE ONE?? Who says?
Do you get to choose, or is it a democracy?
For the purpose of knowing what the Theory of Evolution is.
phoodoo,
I guess irony is not something you are able to recognise.
It seems this is the heart of what they are unable to grok.
When the theories disagree Mung, what do you suppose we can use to determine which one is least wrong?
And, if you’ve answered that, perhaps you can speculate on why we can’t apply that process to anything coming out of Intelligent Design theory?
phoodoo,
It means that the statement “There Is No Egg” is not justified. The statement “There Is No Single Egg” is, while the statement “Most People Favour This Egg” could certainly be true. At least one poster here – possibly not you – has been advancing the first. For fairly representing the picture, the second is just as dumb as the first, in that the advocate is seriously expecting us to believe that they genuinely do not know which theory of evolution they so assiduously oppose. The board rules enjoin me not to attribute that to malice. Though I can only think of one sensible alternative, which again the board rules are very clear on.
There are many ‘theories of ID’, from straight-up Creationism to God as generator of useful mutations sometimes, or starter of the rolling ball and hands-off ever since. When proponents allow for some kind of organic change in lineage, it is certainly A theory of evolution. If it’s about whales or certain paleognaths popping out of nowhere, it isn’t.
OK, I’ve imagined your hypothetical scenario. Now what? Imagine a duck-billed platypus … with a hat on.
No it isn’t. See above.
phoodoo,
In which case I would urge you to take up my offer. It is, in effect, a charitable donation of 10 dollars; you get the book as a gift.
As to ‘why Futuyma’s’: his is probably the most widely respected textbook on the broad subject. It would be reasonable to suppose that he is reflecting – not directing – the consensus view. Would you respond likewise if, in another area, I’d directed you to (say) David Chandler’s textbook on Statistical Mechanics? “Why Chandler, Allan? Do you get to choose?”.
Would you prefer I direct you to every textbook ever? Would that be more helpful?
Allan Miller,
Phoodoo doesn’t want a well-respected textbook about evolutionary theory — he wants the theory itself.
Except he doesn’t want to read The Origin of Species or Evolution: The Modern Synthesis or Populations, Species, and Evolution or Evolution in Four Dimensions or The Ontogeny of Information or The Structure of Evolutionary Theory.
He wants the gift of instant understanding without having to exert any effort — or, God forbid, anything as tedious as reading. Reading is for nerds and losers!
Kantian Naturalist,
I think you are being generous. Understanding evolution is very low on phoodoo’s list of priorities. phoodoo simply wants to score points!
I even found a copy for 36 cents plus 3.99 shipping! That’s 10 dollars for phoodoo’s favourite charity for a sub-5-dollar outlay. Too steep?
Thank God we get credit for something!
🙂
I already have the book. Feel free to give generously this holiday season anyways.
Mung,
And your nominated charity is?
Well, if there are none to help build a wall around your fine country, how about one that is helping refugees?
Have it. Have it. Don’t have that one (though I have plenty others by Mayr). Have it. Have it (In fact, was just thumbing through it a couple days ago). Have it.
If someone wants to tell me which page in each book to look on I’d be happy to post “the theory of evolution” according to each of those authors.
Obviously!
Mung,
OK. Just to establish your bona fides, how many theories of evolution does Futuyma discuss, and how many remain after the historical sketch?
That one happens to be in storage at the moment and I’m not sure I have the motivation to go fetch it. I’ll let you know.
I don’t understand why people don’t just point Frankie and phoodoo to Maynard Smith’s The Theory of Evolution.
“…the best introduction to the subject now available.”
– Richard Dawkins
Great reading recommendations, but she’s Helen Longino.
Mung,
Wish that came in a Kindle edition.
sean s.
It’s not clear to me why any value other than reverence for truth would matter.
From that all other legitimate values follow, do they not?
sean s.
I would agree and add of course that God is truth.
peace
That’ll teach me to post to TSZ from my smartphone. Damn autocorrect!
We know truth exists.
We don’t know any deity exists.
We know it is possible that no deity exists.
So equating a deity and truth is untenable.
sean s.
How do you know this?
Mung,
To be honest, I was unaware of it. I have M-S’s Evolutionary Genetics. But – you really think it would make a difference which one chose? It seems that people think every book is about something different. And whichever one offers, the fact that there are others one could have offered seems to be something worth making a deal of.
Noone has been able to demonstrate a logical contradiction between the statements “No God exists” and “Something exists”.
That’s how we know logical possibilities, they are concievable. In so far as they are concievable, and no contradiction can be derived, they are by definition logically possible.
Mung,
OK, is it your opinion that Futuyma offers multiple current theories of evolution to the student? If not, is the theory presented significantly at odds with that presented by any other author? You seem unwilling to break ranks, despite being at least in a position to be better informed.
As regards the donation, I will actually carry it out, because I’m a great guy. My daughter – my daughter, the doctor 😉 – spent some time working with refugees in the Med this summer. She has asked that we make a charitable donation instead of a Christmas present this year, we get to choose which. So a refugee charity would be very appropriate. I will add 8 quid (ten dollars US) to the amount I was going to give in her name.
We know that anything which has not been proved impossible is possible.
We know that it has not been proved that the lack of a deity is impossible.
We know it is possible that no deity exists.
No deity is required, no deity is known, it could well be there is no deity.
These things we know.
sean s.
I never know what “truth exists” is supposed to mean.
I know what “some statements are true” means. But I can never tell if people who say “truth exists” think that “truth exists” means the same thing as saying “some statements are true”.
If “truth exists” entails “God exists” because “God is truth,” then what are to make of “some statements are true”?
On the picture of classical theism, beginning with Augustine and culminating in Aquinas (within Western Catholicism), truth is the ‘adequacy’ between intellect and reality. A thought is true if it matches or corresponds to how the world is. But it is God whose very Being is the ground of both reality and our own intellect. So it is because reality and intellect have their ground in the same Being that we finite intellects can have thoughts that correspond to how the world is. That is, God explains how we can have true (as well as false) thoughts about the world.
But even on this picture, “God is truth” and “truth exists” make no literal (philosophical) sense.
😉
Peace
How do we know this? 😉
peace
wait for it ——–
How do we know this?
peace
Simply that some statements are in agreement with God’s nature as truth and that given the doctrine of divine simplicity God’s nature is in fact God.
No a thought is true if God believes it.
No we can have thoughts that correspond to how the world is because we are in fact created in the image of God and what he believes is truth.
I would of course disagree.
“Truth exists” because God’s beliefs exist.
“God is truth” because God’s beliefs are synonymous with his essence according to the doctrine of divine simplicity.
It’s philosophically deep I grant but there is nothing contradictory or invalid here.
peace
Because that’s what the word means.
sean s.
Apparently you are new here.
How do you know that? 😉