Do Most Atheists Know that science..... Part 2

[Fiona]

Yes, it's an appeal to authority. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing, let alone a fallacy.

Some confusion here, I think. The appeal to authority is not the same thing as the appeal to the expert. The latter is not a fallacy because it is clear that the expert has the knowledge and evidence to support his opinion. The appeal to authority does not carry that implication; it rests on position rather than superior knowledge

The part I responded to seemed to me to be Jastrow talking about the attitudes of scientists. Being a scientist himself, and having worked with other scientists, he is qualified to give an opinion on that.

No I don't think so, really. He may be qualified, in that he may have discussed these issues with other scientists; and he may be sceptical enough to avoid confirmation bias and other confounding problems. But that is by no means certain. You could ask me what scottish people think about an issue: I have spoken almost exclusively to scottish people most of my life. I haven't a clue what they think about anything they haven't voted on. I am a woman, I talk to a lot of women. I don't know what "women" think, though: the idea that I might is absurd, is it not?

It is true that he may be qualified to say what scientists think in matters which are directly related to his field. Thus he can perhaps say that scientists believe (for now) that there was a beginning to the universe called, amongst other things, the big bang. That is the consensus interpretation of the evidence. Once you move to the impact that makes on scientists - well that phrasing shows what is wrong with it, I think. The impact is not made on scientists - it is made on people. Like everybody else, scientists have views about things outside their field: they have families and culture and ....baggage about covers it. No-one, literally no-one, can see except through their individual prism. This is recognised and it is the reason that experiments must be replicable and must be designed in a way which will reduce the influence of such biases. Science goes to extraordinary lengths to identify sources of such bias, and to control or eliminate them. There is a very good reason for that

As for his opinion not reflecting the consensus, that is for those who disagree with Doc to demonstrate. You can't just point to Jastrow and say "we don't think he's qualified to talk".

I don't think anyone is saying he is not qualified to talk: more that he is not any more qualified to talk about what scientists think than I am about what scottish people think: so long as he is talking about people and their perceptions, and not about cosmology.

 

[FireGarden]

Some confusion here, I think. The appeal to authority is not the same thing as the appeal to the expert. The latter is not a fallacy because it is clear that the expert has the knowledge and evidence to support his opinion. The appeal to authority does not carry that implication; it rests on position rather than superior knowledge

A good distinction, thanks.

No I don't think so, really. He may be qualified, in that he may have discussed these issues with other scientists; and he may be sceptical enough to avoid confirmation bias and other confounding problems. But that is by no means certain.

I agree that Jastrow can't be considered an expert on the opinion of scientists. But it doesn't follow that Jastrow's opinion is worthless.

I don't think anyone is saying he is not qualified to talk: more that he is not any more qualified to talk about what scientists think than I am about what scottish people think: so long as he is talking about people and their perceptions, and not about cosmology.

While you were replying, I edited my post. It now says: You can't just point to Jastrow and say "we don't think that cosmologist is qualified to talk about cosmology".

I felt that better responded to Joobz's argument that "Jastrow's opinion is far from a consensus. Why select his opinion vs. any other number of cosmologists?"

 

[FireGarden]

You could ask me what scottish people think about an issue: I have spoken almost exclusively to scottish people most of my life. I haven't a clue what they think about anything they haven't voted on. I am a woman, I talk to a lot of women. I don't know what "women" think, though: the idea that I might is absurd, is it not?

[...] I don't think anyone is saying he is not qualified to talk: more that he is not any more qualified to talk about what scientists think than I am about what scottish people think: so long as he is talking about people and their perceptions, and not about cosmology.

I deleted my first response to this.
It's a good point. I broadly agree.

The only difference I can point out is that Jastrow isn't discussing the opinion of scientists regarding random matters. It would be more like my asking you "What does it mean to be a woman?" For sure, there is no one answer to that. And it would be foolish to suppose that any one woman's opinion would be more correct than another's.

But would it be a fallacy to quote you?

It would be wrong to demand that your opinion be the last word. However, Doc has not said that Jastrow's opinion should be the last word.

Doc quoted Jastrow, and I don't think that is a bad place to start a discussion.

 

[DOC]

For example, someone in here had faith in a big bang singularity and it was later shown they didn't understand the definition of it.

Poor example. My original argument was uneffected by the error in the singularity. The fact that you have been unwilling (unable?) to answer my original question is much more telling.

The above sounds like a song and dance man routine, and makes no sense to me.

I asked you to define singularity.

How can you say it "was" a singularity, and what is your definition of a singularity.

a singularity is a point of infinite mass and zero volume. We extrapolate that fact due to 1.) Cosmic background radiation and 2.) the expansion of the universe.

You gave the wrong definition of "infinite mass and zero volume". Your use of the wording of "infinite mass" showed a misunderstanding of the concept of big bang singularity.

Why can't you just say, Ok, I didn't understand it, and leave it at that. All this other song and dance just hurts your credibility. And as I said before, the only reason I'm persistent about this is your "constant talk" about my alleged misunderstanding of scientific terms. Why can't you just say, You know what, I admit it, I just didn't understand it at the time, but now I do. Until you can swallow your pride and say that, your not going to be credible. There is no shame in not knowing it, but there is shame in your refusal to admit it and trying to deflect the blame on me with a song and dance.

ETA I'm never going to respond to your question until I hear you say, I didn't understand big bang singularity at the time I gave the wrong definition.

All you have to say is I didn't understand singularity. Can you say that??

If you do, I'll answer your question.

ETA And if you would have said above, "My original argument was unaffected by "my" error in singularity instead of was unaffected by "the" error in singularity, I wouldn't even have put up this post.

 

[Mashuna]

The above sounds like a song and dance man routine, and makes no sense to me.

I asked you to define singularity. You gave the wrong definition of "infinite mass + 0 volume". Your use of the wording of "infinite mass" showed a misunderstanding of the concept of big bang singularity.

Why can't you just say, Ok, I didn't understand it, and leave it at that. All this other song and dance just hurts your credibility. And as I said before, the only reason I'm persistent about this is your "constant talk" about my alleged misunderstanding of scientific terms. Why can't you just say, You know what, I admit it, I just didn't understand it at the time, but now I do. Until you can swallow your pride and say that, your not going to be credible. There is no shame in not knowing it, but there is shame in your refusal to admit it and trying to deflect the blame on me with a song and dance.

I'm trying to work out if this is unintentional irony, or just hypocrisy.

 

[articulett]

Clearly, credibility is in the eye of the beholder. I just want to say that I, for one, find Mashuna infinitely more credible than DOC. I suspect most others share this perception.

Mashuna rocks
DOC doesn't grok

 

[CFLarsen]

Clearly, credibility is in the eye of the beholder. I just want to say that I, for one, find Mashuna infinitely more credible than DOC. I suspect most others share this perception.

Mashuna rocks
DOC doesn't grok

Please don't try to drum up support for your opinions of people here. That only serves to create division here - division based on your personal likes and dislikes.

That people disagree on issues is expected - and even welcomed. But turn the forum into a battlefield of ideas - not a battlefield where people are either for you or against you.

 

[catbasket]

But turn the forum into a battlefield of ideas - not a battlefield where people are either for you or against you.

Claus, your constant off topic blathering in a large number of threads has turned me against you. Please try to turn the forum into a battlefield of ideas - not a battlefield where people are either for you or against you.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

I'm trying to work out if this is unintentional irony, or just hypocrisy.

A little from column A...

 

[joobz]

As for his opinion not reflecting the consensus, that is for those who disagree with Doc to demonstrate. You can't just point to Jastrow and say "we don't think that cosmologist is qualified to talk about cosmology".

Like I said, Jastrow is not speaking of cosmology but rather theology. His cosmologist background isn't relevant here.

 

[joobz]

I deleted my first response to this.
It's a good point. I broadly agree.

The only difference I can point out is that Jastrow isn't discussing the opinion of scientists regarding random matters. It would be more like my asking you "What does it mean to be a woman?" For sure, there is no one answer to that. And it would be foolish to suppose that any one woman's opinion would be more correct than another's.

But would it be a fallacy to quote you?

If it was used as sole support of a point, yes.

It would be wrong to demand that your opinion be the last word. However, Doc has not said that Jastrow's opinion should be the last word.

Doc quoted Jastrow, and I don't think that is a bad place to start a discussion.

Unfortunately, this is just wrong. DOC didn't start the discussion with the quote, nor has he expanded upon it.

 

[arthwollipot]

I agree with FireGarden. And I agree with joobz. You know how crazy that makes me feel?

 

[joobz]

The above sounds like a song and dance man routine, and makes no sense to me.

Not at all. I asked if you believed that the universe was non-existent when it was a singularity. I refined this question to ask, do you believe the universe was immediately pre-bigbang.

I asked you to define singularity.

Which I answered. and was found later to be incorrect. I've admitted this multiple times. Do you not see the irnoy of avoiding my questions, when I so readily answer yours?

You gave the wrong definition of "infinite mass and zero volume". Your use of the wording of "infinite mass" showed a misunderstanding of the concept of big bang singularity.

Do you believe that the mistatement on my part is fundemental to the question I posed?

Why can't you just say, Ok, I didn't understand it, and leave it at that. All this other song and dance just hurts your credibility.

I have admitted the error. Multiple times. I find your avoidance of my questions to be the telling part. Again, you wrote the long post instead of answering me.

And as I said before, the only reason I'm persistent about this is your "constant talk" about my alleged misunderstanding of scientific terms.

My errors do not invalidate that argument. If you feel I am wrong regarding that, then by all means answer the questions and prove me wrong.

Why can't you just say, You know what, I admit it, I just didn't understand it at the time, but now I do. Until you can swallow your pride and say that, your not going to be credible. There is no shame in not knowing it, but there is shame in your refusal to admit it and trying to deflect the blame on me with a song and dance.

In this case, you[Firegarden] were the one to make the correction and I give you[Firegarden] full credit for highlighting my mistake, for which I thank you.

IN post 62, I've admitted I was wrong. every post since, which I have used the words "My mistake, "My error" reinforces my acknowledging this error. Your claim that I have not admitted it is dishonest and a distraction.

ETA I'm never going to respond to your question until I hear you say, I didn't understand big bang singularity at the time I gave the wrong definition.

I will not abide by your demands simply becuase they are nonsense. I've admitted the error. IF you are unable to accept that. Fine. Why not, then, answer other people's questions?

All you have to say is I didn't understand singularity. Can you say that??

If you do, I'll answer your question.[/quote]
Don't answer my questions then. Why not answer other people's questions? Why not address Firegarden's posts?

You claim to have limited time to respond to everyone. Then why not respond to on topic issues instead of trying to discredit me?

ETA And if you would have said above, "My original argument was unaffected by "my" error in singularity instead of was unaffected by "the" error in singularity, I wouldn't even have put up this post.

I've admitted my error multiple times. Your demands are dishonest.

 

[DOC]

Well, I'll confess that I have no idea what a "vacuum fluctuation" is. It sounds like one of those gobbledygook tech terms they make up on Star Trek.

How 'bout these terms:

Quantum tunneling,

scattering matrix,

pi mason,

rho mason,

virtual W basons,

antineutrino.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

I'm glad the author of Genesis didn't use this kind of language.

 

[joobz]

I agree with FireGarden. And I agree with joobz. You know how crazy that makes me feel?

I do not view my disagreement with firegarden as fundemental opposed. If I was to have entered a thread fresh, I would have sided with him as well. My difference in opinion stems from my experience with DOC.

You'll note that the core point is how the appeal to authority is used. Firegarden is assuming that DOC is using it as a jumping off point for the discussion. I know better. Perhaps DOC will prove me wrong in this. I'd welcome being wrong in that. We'll see.

 

[joobz]

How 'bout these terms:

Quantum tunneling,

scattering matrix,

pi mason,

rho mason,

virtual W basons,

antineutrino.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

I'm glad the author of Genesis didn't use this kind of language.

Yeah, the bible used much clearer words like "firmament" and that this firmament seperates water from water. Yup, that's much clearer. It's wrong, but much clearer.

 

[bokonon]

How 'bout these terms:

Quantum tunneling,

scattering matrix,

pi mason,

rho mason,

virtual W basons,

antineutrino.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

I'm glad the author of Genesis didn't use this kind of language.

The fact that I don't have a fundamental understanding of something doesn't mean it's meaningless or invalid. I understand what quantum tunneling is, and I know what subatomic particles are, even though I couldn't pick one out of a bubble chamber line-up. I assume I could look up "vacuum fluctuation" and possibly understand what that is too, but it isn't on my short list of things to do before I die.

I'm comfortable with the idea that I'll never know everything, and don't feel the need to fill the vast universe of "unknown" and "imperfectly known" with obvious nonsense just to puff myself up with the false feeling that I have "absolute" knowledge.

 

[zooterkin]

How 'bout these terms:

Quantum tunneling,

scattering matrix,

pi mason,

rho mason,

virtual W basons,

antineutrino.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

I'm glad the author of Genesis didn't use this kind of language.

Is it a trick question? Three of them are wrong.


ETA: Perhaps we're heading off on an Illuminati derail, with those pesky Masons putting in an appearance?

 

[articulett]

Claus, your constant off topic blathering in a large number of threads has turned me against you. Please try to turn the forum into a battlefield of ideas - not a battlefield where people are either for you or against you.

The nice thing about the ignore button is that you only read the words of some sorts when they are being "responded to" by people you enjoy reading--thnx for being the latter. win-win

 

[articulett]

Yeah, the bible used much clearer words like "firmament" and that this firmament seperates water from water. Yup, that's much clearer. It's wrong, but much clearer.

Yes, in fact by amazing coincidence we were just discussing the language of genesis on a different thread: