AngelRho wrote:
Yes, I did misinterpret AG's answer, but it wasn't deliberate.
Didn't think it was. I guessed you were stuck on one or two ideas and had so much trouble getting off them that you needed a whack with a metaphorical brick to get your attention.
AngelRho wrote:
So what DO you think? You said that you "infer the existence" from regularity in your observations. With gravity, even though we can't "see" it, we do have the evidence from its effects on objects. Ergo, according to AG, greenblue, and Binary, we may believe that there is such a force as gravity, even if we are unclear as to EXACTLY what it is. It's like arguing that the sun does not exist. I can point to evidence that "proves" the sun exists just by stepping out on a clear day.
I don't think there is much difference. If you look into modern theories of perception you'll find they are theories of statistical inference.
All we ever know about the universe is based on statistical inference. The only difference between gravity and seeing and feeling sunlight is that with gravity you (or the scientists you rely on) do the job deliberately and consciously, and when you think you directly perceive the sun, your brain does the statistical inference for you without you ever noticing. The basis for the maths is the same.
That creates a little problem if you try to deny evidence for evolution because you object to conclusions based on statistical inference. If you want to be consistent you have to deny all knowledge of the universe and all you can do is mess about with maths and logic in solipsistic isolation. You'd even have to deny the existence of the Bible.
AngelRho wrote:
For you, is evidence required for belief? Or, more to the point, should something be ignored if there is no evidence for it?
If you are willing to abandon your previous preoccupation with physical evidence and the division between evidence and reasoning (or logic, as you called it) in favour of a broader meaning of evidence, and if you are willing to treat belief or lack of belief as a shorthand for a probability estimate, then yes.
Take an example much overused in creationist arguments, a protein with 100 amino acids. The number of possible sequences is larger than the estimated number of elementary particles in the universe. Creationists like to argue that makes the evolution of a protein with that many amino acids so improbable that we may treat it as impossible for all practical purposes. The fallacy is to assume that each amino acid is the result of
independent random events. But let's say I saw you pick 100 amino acids randomly, independently, with replacement, to generate that sequence. Then you ask me "does this protein exist anywhere in the universe?" I say probably not. If you ask me whether a teapot orbits Mars this minute, you get the same answer. Not because either event is impossible, only because from what I know about how you generated the sequence and from what I know about teapots and what sort of objects are commonly in orbit around planets, I would say they are both improbable enough that I would ask for evidence before I believe them.
AngelRho wrote:
Or, perhaps, do you think that what these three have plainly said is absurd?
My position is probably similar to theirs. It is
very different from what you were going on about earlier in the thread. You claimed it was absurd to demand
physical evidence before believing something existed because the people who demand that have no physical evidence for the logic they rely on. The people who ask for evidence, in the broad sense, do not accept your division. Data can only be evidence if they are evidence
for or
against some hypothesis or theory, That is only possible if you have some basis for reasoning. The concept of evidence already depends on accepting the existence of the concepts you need to engage in reasoning. The people you attacked don't make the division you attacked as being absurd.
08 Jun 2010, 7:48 am
