 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7559
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:36 pm Post subject: An interesting passage about skepticism |
 |
|
Here's a really interesting passage written by Carl Sagan in his book, "The Demon Haunted World":
| Quote: | "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me.
|
The rest of the passage is here:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
Does anyone else here find this to be interesting?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I rather like the very next part:
| P's link wrote: | | Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved." |
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6886
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I found this comment interesting in the portion Ana quoted:
| Quote: |
Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. |
I'm left wondering at what 'present evidence' he was referring to? If there is no evidence for or against something, then isn't that definitively meaning there is no evidence?
In terms of the existence of God, which I assume this thread was directed towards, I have to examine if scientifically, logically, and philosophically, lack of proof equals disproof.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7559
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: |
I'm left wondering at what 'present evidence' he was referring to? If there is no evidence for or against something, then isn't that definitively meaning there is no evidence? |
This is a good point that you bring up, but Sagan is right that in this case the present evidence is strongly against the hypothesis that there is a dragon in the garage. This is because they performed a variety of very different scientific tests which should have proved the existence of the dragon, but all of the tests came up negative.
This is no different than, say, if Einstein's (then) hypothesis of Relativity made a bunch of predictions, and ALL of the scientific tests which explored those predictions showed that the predictions were false. The scientific community would have concluded that his theory was wrong pretty quickly.
The same scientific method and reasoning apply to the dragon in the garage.
| RevJP wrote: |
In terms of the existence of God, which I assume this thread was directed towards, I have to examine if scientifically, logically, and philosophically, lack of proof equals disproof. |
Nobody says that lack of proof equals disproof. But disproof sure equals disproof.
We can treat God's existence as a scientific hypothesis and start testing it.
We might start by saying, "If God exists and he performs miracles by healing the sick and wounded like his believers claim, then God must sometimes heal amputees." Then we test this hypothesis by checking the medical literature to see if any amputee has ever suddenly grown a limb back... Nope, it's never happened.
We report this to the believers, who of course have an explanation for it similar to, "Well, the dragon is invisible."
Next we might state, "If God exists and the [insert holy book here] is his inerrant word, then it must be perfect and doesn't have any errors in it." So we test this hypothesis by examining the relevant holy book, only to find that it's got TONS of errors in it.
We report this to the believers, who of course have an explanation for each and every error we found. This is similar to "the dragon floats on air".
Every single experiment we do to explore the existence of God will end up being a failure, and every single time the believers will say an analog to "the dragon is non-corporeal", or "it's invisible and heatless fire", etc., etc.
If the argument against the existence of the dragon in the garage is sound, then why is this argument against the existence of God not sound?
Science is a falsification procedure. It can never prove anything. All it can ever do is disprove something.
We've done countless tests which disprove the God hypothesis. If we believe science when it disproves the dragon hypothesis, then why don't we believe it when it disproves the God hypothesis?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6886
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
First let us clarify and few misconceptions:
| RevJP, Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:42 am wrote: | | This is because they performed a variety of very different scientific tests which should have proved the existence of the dragon, but all of the tests came up negative. |
Maybe I misread Sagan's dialog, but it seemed to me that tests were proposed but could not be performed:
See = invisible
Flour = floating
Infrared = heatless fire
Paint = incorporeal
Just seems to me that there is a disconnect here, proposed tests could not be performed, thus NO evidence was produced to make a determination on the existence of the dragon. IOW the claim you made that the "tests came up negative", is definitively incorrect.
However, like I said; I could have misread the dialog.
| Quote: | We can treat God's existence as a scientific hypothesis and start testing it.
We might start by saying, "If God exists and he performs miracles by healing the sick and wounded like his believers claim, then God must sometimes heal amputees." Then we test this hypothesis by checking the medical literature to see if any amputee has ever suddenly grown a limb back... Nope, it's never happened. |
I will point out that this is a return to an argument which you avoided in another thread.
| Quote: | You speak of healing, curing disease, yet you failed to acknowledge that a missing limb is not an illness, or disease. Let me remind you of that thread:
One must look at healing, what it is and what it is not, and then one would understand the cognitive dissonance incorporated in this whole discussion.
heal·ing /ˈhilɪŋ/
–adjective
1. curing or curative; prescribed or helping to heal.
2. growing sound; getting well; mending.
–noun
3. the act or process of regaining health: a new drug to accelerate healing.
What healing is not, is an addition of something missing. Growing a new limb back is not healing, it is restoration of something gone. Healing is the return to a healthy state from an unhealthy state, and I am sorry to say that replacing a limb that is no longer present is not this at all. One without a limb can be, and usually is; healthy.
Does the absence of a leg or arm, or appendix, make one unhealthy? By definition it does not, is simply makes one exist in a different physical form than before.
God can and does heal through prayer, but when one asks why God does not change the human form through prayer then on is talking about something completely different than healing. |
| Quote: | | Next we might state, "If God exists and the [insert holy book here] is his inerrant word, then it must be perfect and doesn't have any errors in it." So we test this hypothesis by examining the relevant holy book, only to find that it's got TONS of errors in it. |
Certainly if you want to make false assertions and then prove them to be false...  In my mind that is not 'good science' but straw man burning grounded in specific unreasonable agenda's.
| Quote: |
If the argument against the existence of the dragon in the garage is sound, then why is this argument against the existence of God not sound? |
One thing to remember here is that the existence and nature of God (at least our concept of it given through scripture) was established long before 'science' existed. It is not as if someone came up, made a claim, and then specifically threw in qualifications and parameters that would cut science off at every turn, as you seem to be suggesting.
| Quote: | | We've done countless tests which disprove the God hypothesis. If we believe science when it disproves the dragon hypothesis, then why don't we believe it when it disproves the God hypothesis? |
I adamantly disagree. You have set up straw men in which to knock down, and you claim those are 'tests' which disprove something.
Your assertions are scientifically laughable.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7559
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | Maybe I misread Sagan's dialog, but it seemed to me that tests were proposed but could not be performed:
See = invisible
Flour = floating
Infrared = heatless fire
Paint = incorporeal
|
They could be performed, but the person claiming the existence of the dragon conceded that the tests would all be negative, so they didn't bother trying them. Sagan easily could have put the tests in there and had them turn out negative, but that would have interrupted the flow of the story, so he didn't bother.
| RevJP wrote: |
Just seems to me that there is a disconnect here, proposed tests could not be performed, thus NO evidence was produced to make a determination on the existence of the dragon. IOW the claim you made that the "tests came up negative", is definitively incorrect.
|
The tests most certainly could be performed, but they came up negative (or would have come up negative). That's the whole point of the allegory: Scientists propose or perform some test which shows that something doesn't exist, and the person making the extravagant claim always comes up for an excuse for why it didn't or wouldn't work.
If every single test of Einstein's hypotheses ended up negative, everyone would have (quite rightly) concluded that his ideas were wrong, regardless of whatever protests he could have thought of. That's how science works.
Why should we treat the dragon or God any differently than relativity or any other scientific matter?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6886
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | They could be performed |
How? Can you perform a test on something that you know cannot be tested in the manner in which you propose?
uh... wait...
I'm sure you would find a way in order to promote some nonsensical conclusion that your 'evidence' proves your assertion.
| Quote: | | Why should we treat the dragon or God any differently than relativity or any other scientific matter? |
Are you serious? What can science investigate and measure? Things of the natural world - physical things and physical things only. Am I wrong?
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7559
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | They could be performed |
How? Can you perform a test on something that you know cannot be tested in the manner in which you propose?
|
How does science work? You make a hypothesis. You test it. You reformulate your hypothesis, you test it, and so on. This is the scientific method.
If someone tells you they have a fire-breathing dragon in their garage, you are a good and skeptical scientist, so you want evidence. But you're open-minded, so you formulate a hypothesis: "Jack has a dragon in his garage."
How do you test this hypothesis scientifically? Well, the most obvious test is direct observation, so you go and open his garage door. Nothing. Now you're even more skeptical, because the extravagance of the claim is growing.
You go back and reformulate your hypothesis: "Jack has an invisible dragon in his garage." How do we test this? Spread flour on the floor. Nothing. Now you're even more skeptical.
New hypothesis: There's an invisible, floating dragon in the garage. You test for its fire using an infrared sensor. Nothing.
New hypothesis: There's an invisible, floating dragon which breathes heatless fire in the garage. You test for it using spray paint. Nothing.
Each test is a failure, and after each experiment your skepticism keeps growing. By the time the hypothesis involves heatless fire and a non-corporeal dragon, things are getting ridiculous, and it's much more reasonable to conclude that Jack is crazy or that he was hallucinating or that he was playing a prank.
This is all very scientific. It's the scientific method at work. Does this make sense?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ragman13
German Shepherd
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 325
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
P1234567890 said:
| Quote: | | If someone tells you they have a fire-breathing dragon in their garage, you are a good and skeptical scientist, so you want evidence. But you're open-minded, so you formulate a hypothesis: "Jack has a dragon in his garage." |
Jack says there is global warming caused by humans.
| Quote: | | How do you test this hypothesis scientifically? Well, the most obvious test is direct observation, so you go and open his garage door. Nothing. Now you're even more skeptical, because the extravagance of the claim is growing. |
Direct observation
1. Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming
A. For the first time in memory, snow fell across Baghdad.
| Quote: | | How does science work? You make a hypothesis. You test it. You reformulate your hypothesis, you test it, and so on. This is the scientific method. |
Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289
http://www.dailytech.com/Solar+Activity+Diminishes+Researchers+Predict+Another+Ice+Age/article10630.htm
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
I say time for a new hypothesis. You say no really the earth is warming and its becouse you don't drive a civic.
How are you any better than Jack and his dragon?
_________________
If Jesus Christ were to come today, people would not even crucify him. They would ask him to dinner, and hear what he had to say, and make fun of it. —Thomas Carlyle
Shh. Don't tell anyone that I am a Fundamentalist! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6065
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ragman13 wrote: | | Jack says there is global warming caused by humans. |
The name "Global Warming" is a result of the press. "Global Climate Change" is a more accurate moniker.
Doesn't it seem odd that for the first time in memory snow fell across Baghdad? Why would that happen?
You've got a cognitive bias. You're pointing to these examples which specifically refute "Global Warming" while ignoring the fact that they clearly show that something is going on.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ragman13
German Shepherd
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 325
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes if you would look at the 3 websites that I posted they discuss what is going on and its not "Global warming". Let me guess, the earth is both cooling and warming becouse of human activity "Global climate change"? Yeah so now The invisible dragon global warming is also floating in the air and has fire that isn't hot. Wow you guys are good at this skeptic stuff.
_________________
If Jesus Christ were to come today, people would not even crucify him. They would ask him to dinner, and hear what he had to say, and make fun of it. —Thomas Carlyle
Shh. Don't tell anyone that I am a Fundamentalist! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6886
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that maybe the arctic ice is just shifting to Bagdad...
No worries about rising sea levels.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7559
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ragman13 wrote: | | Yes if you would look at the 3 websites that I posted they discuss what is going on and its not "Global warming". |
People can write whatever they want on the internet. What absolutely ASTOUNDS me is that you'll accept the arguments of journalists (who have no science background), and the authority of bloggers who have no credentials whatsoever, and you DON'T accept the authority of the world's EXPERTS on the topic. Both you and Pondering have cited web pages to back up your viewpoints. Do you understand that they are worth NOTHING?!?
Find me peer reviewed scientific papers from respectable journals which say that global climate change is not happening. I can find you plenty which say that it is AND that humans are the cause. If I post them here, will you read them? So far Pondering and RevJP don't seem to be interested in actually hearing the *scientific* arguments. Are you more open-minded and reasonable than them?
As for the sun, there is a phenomenon known as 'global dimming', and even though there was less sunlight reaching the Earth's surface, our temperatures were still going up. Do you not see how this is powerful evidence FOR global warming?
| ragman13 wrote: |
Let me guess, the earth is both cooling and warming becouse of human activity "Global climate change"? Yeah so now The invisible dragon global warming is also floating in the air and has fire that isn't hot. Wow you guys are good at this skeptic stuff. |
You're not understanding climate change. The climatologists predicted LONG ago that climate change would manifest itself as MORE EXTREME weather, which would include more droughts and increasing global temperatures, but that it would also manifest itself as more hurricanes, ice storms, and record low temperatures.
This is not bad science, and in fact it is very easy to see. If our atmosphere starts to warm up (which, by the way, has been OBSERVED), then all of that extra heat energy can manifest itself as heat, or it can manifest itself as kinetic energy. This is just the law of conservation of energy. More kinetic energy means more storms and more extreme cold fronts, blizzards, etc.
As for your complaint that there was snow in Baghdad, and that this somehow refutes climate change, you're wrong. The Earth's atmosphere is definitely warming. Here is the data. It is undeniable:
You can deny global warming all you want, but if you've seen this chart and you continue to deny it, then it's like you're saying that the Earth is flat after having seen satellite pictures.
The debate about WHETHER the Earth's atmosphere is warming has been over for decades. The only questions were about the causes. And those debates have been over for a long time as well. There is virtually no debate about it anymore within the scientific community, because the evidence is so overwhelming.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
