• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A beautiful argument for naturalism from Michael Shermer

I'm wondering hopw Shermer plans to test the hypothesis of infinite or "near infinite" (whatever that means!) universes.

If our universe, by definition, is all that we see or observe, how is infinite universes anything more than an interesting, but untestable, narrative?
 
No degrees, and not much intelligence, either.

Those who blow smoke about intelligence of others tend to be the ones without any degrees. I'm finding that more and more.

Of course, I point out, again, that these people, you in this debate, were the first one to 'get personal'. Why did you feel the need to do it?
(and you don't need to answer that, just think about it, please!)
 
I'm wondering hopw Shermer plans to test the hypothesis of infinite or "near infinite" (whatever that means!) universes.

If our universe, by definition, is all that we see or observe, how is infinite universes anything more than an interesting, but untestable, narrative?

Shermer isn't a member here. Why ask the question here, and not direct it to himself?
 
But how does one know that? Can you explain in greater detail?

If you want to go that way, could you point out which user is Shermer?

You must know, since you ask. Otherwise, you are just asking for the sake of asking.
 
I'm going to answer your questions and discuss the clock-thingy in more detail, later, because I think I've latched onto something important.
I'm not going to do it here though. Look out for a new thread.

"It's turtles all the way down."

Sorry if I stole your thunder.
 
No, you're dishonestly twisting what I said.

I said it is hard to take his current beliefs and statements on the state of the universe more anything more than a large grain of salt since he has flip-flopped from strong belief to strong disbelief, and not that he has to be born in the skeptical movement to take him seriously.
This makes no sense whatsoever. The second part of the sentence directly contradicts the first. And what is with this "flip-flopped". He went from one state of belief to another, once. He didn't go back. It is reasonable and rational to analyze ones beliefs and change the beliefs that are found lacking in the light of evidence. In the age of reason this is a GOOD thing. Not something to hold against another. The history of human progress is paved with such humans. Thank Ed for them.

But go back some years... and he'd say the exact opposite, so it is hard to put much weight in his current strong statement of belief.
I don't know Shermer's exact history but I'm reasonably certain that one belief was based on indoctrination and the other based on reason. Big difference.
 
A narrative for a tautology can be compelling, I agree.
Would you please explain this?

Then you have to go beyond that and ask if the theory fits the evidence.
? Evolution makes "TESTABLE" predictions. It is not post-hoc. We are saying that given evolution we should be able to go out into the field and find information that had been previously unknown and so scientists go out into the field and find that information. That is very powerful.

For example, does it explain what we observe in the fossil record?
Not 100% but yes, of course. It is done all of the time.

Can we construct a detailed Darwinian pathway from any organism to another?
With the advent of genetic blueprinting we are constructing a very clear picture or "pathway" from one organism to another. It is not complete, AIU but the evidence is simply overwhelming.

Can we explain how time and chance can produce a piece of a cell that, without any one of its parts, ceases to function, that is many many times more complex than our most sophisticated computers (which we know are designed..)? Can we just say 'natural selection' and try to ignore all the random stuff in the evolution equation that makes things improbable?
Argument from ignorance. Straw man. No scientists is simply saying "natural selections" and ignoring anything. When scientists find problems they try and solve them. That they solve so many of the problems and answer so many questions is what makes the science and the theory so compelling.

You really need to visit www.talkorigins.org. You are simply regurgitating tired old arguments. I was once an ID proponent so I know a number of them. An intellectually honest view of the evidence can only lead, IMO, to an acceptance of evolution. It's just to in depth, comprehensive, and has been demonstrated time and again to answer the many questions held by scientists.
 
And what is with this "flip-flopped". He went from one state of belief to another, once.

Ok, so he just flipped, or he just flopped.

It is reasonable and rational to analyze ones beliefs and change the beliefs that are found lacking in the light of evidence.

Point was, how do we know his current beliefs are as strong as his past ones (that were apparently just as strong then)?
 
? Evolution makes "TESTABLE" predictions. It is not post-hoc. We are saying that given evolution we should be able to go out into the field and find information that had been previously unknown and so scientists go out into the field and find that information. That is very powerful.
To buttress my statements on this issue please read the following carefully paying close attention to the bolded text. To find the text from the link scroll half way down the page.

What is Meant by "Scientific Evidence" for Common Descent?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/
Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.

As a clear example of an untestable, unscientific, hypothesis that is perfectly consistent with empirical observations, consider solipsism. The so-called hypothesis of solipsism holds that all of reality is the product of your mind. What experiments could be performed, what observations could be made, that could demonstrate that solipsism is wrong? Even though it is logically consistent with the data, solipsism cannot be tested by independent researchers. Any and all evidence is consistent with solipsism. Solipsism is unscientific precisely because no possible evidence could stand in contradiction to its predictions. For those interested, a brief explication of the scientific method and scientific philosophy has been included, such as what is meant by "scientific evidence", "falsification", and "testability".
Now go back and read the bolded part again. Your claim against evolution is an example of ignorance.
 
Evolution makes "TESTABLE" predictions. It is not post-hoc.

If life 'started over' again, can you predict what it will look like at any time t?

Can you tell with current life what it will be like in 1 year? 100 million years?
 
Now go back and read the bolded part again. Your claim against evolution is an example of ignorance.

You might just be demonstrating your ignorance if you claim I made a "claim against evolution". I asked some questions, which you might have perceived, for whatever reason of your own knowing, as a "claim against".
 
No, you're dishonestly twisting what I said.

I fail to see how that wasn't an accurate description of your complaint.

I said it is hard to take his current beliefs and statements on the state of the universe more anything more than a large grain of salt since he has flip-flopped from strong belief to strong disbelief, and not that he has to be born in the skeptical movement to take him seriously.

Oh, I see how your trying to back out of this. Your pointing out that you never actually said he had to be born with his current views, simply that he needs to have never changed his views for you to take him seriously. Please, this is exactly the flaw in your reasoning that I pointed out. Who's dishonestly twisting thing now? You never answered my second question. If one of us in this forum was to switch from a skeptical position to complete agreement with everything you say would you be inclined to submit less weight to the new position because of the "flip-flop"?

But go back some years... and he'd say the exact opposite, so it is hard to put much weight in his current strong statement of belief.

Again, pointing out that he had irrational beliefs before he discovered rationality is a rather poor argument against his statement in my opinion. It's like saying "But when Copernicus was young he believed in the Geocentric Universe".

There are many ways to interpret the evidence. :)

Yes, but many of those ways are are not supported by the evidence from which the interpretation is supposedly drawn.

Take Dawkins' simplistic computer program, or the 'evolving' of the phrase. In each case, he is the intelligent designer giving it parameters, or knowing the outcome (the phrase) in advance.

Dawkins states clearly that the biomorph program is only a simple example of how selection works. He plainly states that in the biomorph system he is acting as a selector in place of natural selection. If you've actually read The Blind Watchmaker then you are aware of the great detail he then goes into as explaination for how natural selection works. I can't believe you're attacking biomorphs as though they were the theory of natural selection.

If someone sees a sign that has "Hi Steve" written on it, we know it is designed. Yet when some see DNA, which is a 500 gadzillion times more complex, people don't see real design but 'give it time and chance and it can happen'. Since we've never known time and chance making things that complex, the latter is a larger statement of faith (one which I don't necessarily disagree with) even if it is a naturalistic explanation. Just because you're saying it is natural, doesn't mean it is suddenly probable or preferred.

This is just Paley's tired old watch.


Any other odd notion you dream up for a joking comparison is probably possible too, but that ploy does nothing to defeat the general idea of god(s), especially considering rational people understand that FSM was invented to attempt to mock god(s), and we know very well what regular ol pasta is capable of.

No, the FSM was invented to show how gods are invented.

Back to square one for you..

This reminds me of that scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail when John Cleese runs up to the Norman castle and hits the wall once with his sword before running away.

Steven
 
Point was, how do we know his current beliefs are as strong as his past ones (that were apparently just as strong then)?
Again, I can't speak for Shermer but we can be fairly certain that his past beliefs were based on emotion, peer influence, confirmation bias, bias in general, indoctrination, etc.

His present beliefs, I'm also quite certain, are based on logic, reason, critical thinking, empiricism, skepticism and the scientific method.

Huge, huge difference. The latter gave us medicine, a trip to the moon, the internal combustion engine, knowledge of the structure of atoms, knowledge of the structure of DNA, an understanding of the precise speed of light, the discovery or inventions of the incandescent light bulb, TV, Radio, the transistor, the digital computer, Newtonian physics, Euclidean geometry, quantum mechanics, theory of relativity, etc., etc.

The former gave us incompatible and controversial philosophies.

The two are not exclusive but if I had to choose what was a better source for truth I would have to go with science. Shermer is on firm ground and one can be reasonably certain that he won't change his position again.
 
So not able to make some (of the most important) predictions.

Is that because of the inherent randomness in the equation?
 
If life 'started over' again, can you predict what it will look like at any time t?

Can you tell with current life what it will be like in 1 year? 100 million years?
You didn't read the text, did you? :(

These questions simply can't and won't invalidate the science of evolution. You are just arguing from ignorance.

Ignorance can be cured. Willful ignorance can't. The choice is yours.
 
You might just be demonstrating your ignorance if you claim I made a "claim against evolution". I asked some questions, which you might have perceived, for whatever reason of your own knowing, as a "claim against".
Fair enough, then let's stop the BS and get our cards on the table. What is your point?
 

Back
Top Bottom