This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I
found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:
John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would
I want to kiss His ass?"
John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and
if you don't, He'll kick the guts out of you."
Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"
John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town.
Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is
to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His ass."
Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."
Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million
dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"
Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."
John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"
Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."
Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"
John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave
town."
Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"
Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the
money, and He kicks the guts
out of you."
Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the
million dollars?"
John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year,
and I'm sure she got the money."
Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if
you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"
Mary: "Well, maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto,
maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."
Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"
John: "In this town, Hank is the same as good luck. All good things
are attributed to Hank'"
Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."
John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And
remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the guts out of
you."
Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight
from Him..."
Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."
Me: "Then how do you kiss His ass?"
John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other
times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."
Me: "Who's Karl?"
Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing
Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."
Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank,
that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"
John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining
the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."
From the Desk of Karl
1. Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you
leave town.
2. Use alcohol in moderation.
3. Kick the guts out of people who aren't like you.
4. Eat right.
5. Hank dictated this list Himself.
6. The moon is made of green cheese.
7. Everything Hank says is right.
8. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9. Don't use alcohol.
10. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11. Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the guts out of you.
Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."
Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."
Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's
handwriting."
John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."
Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"
Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."
Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of
philanthropist kicks the guts out of people just because they're
different?"
Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."
Me: "How do you figure that?"
Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough
for me!"
Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."
John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides,
item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and
item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone
knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."
Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item
2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain
wrong."
John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2.
As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for
sure."
Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made
of rock..."
Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from
out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon
was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not
knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."
John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we
know Hank is always right!"
Me: "We do?"
Mary: "Of course we do, Item 7 says so."
Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the
list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated
it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than
saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come
around to Hank's way of thinking."
On Oct 1, 6:09 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the
> list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated
> it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than
> saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
> John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come
> around to Hank's way of thinking."
> Me: "But...oh, never mind.
Evolution is exaclty this way of circular reasoning. It is true
because it is science-backed, it's science backed because it is
appearently supported by evidience, and evidence must support it
because it is true?
> On Oct 1, 6:09 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the
> > list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated
> > it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than
> > saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
> > John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come
> > around to Hank's way of thinking."
> > Me: "But...oh, never mind.
> Evolution is exaclty this way of circular reasoning. It is true
> because it is science-backed, it's science backed because it is
> appearently supported by evidience, and evidence must support it
> because it is true?
Not really, but maybe with 4.5 billion years of practice you can be as
good a wordsmith as Dembski. Start with using the word "Darwinism"
instead of evolution.
>Evolution is exaclty this way of circular reasoning. It is true
>because it is science-backed, it's science backed because it is
>appearently supported by evidience, and evidence must support it
>because it is true?
No, evolution is science.
Science uses evidence.
If you can show it is not true then you will become a famous person.
<willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 1, 6:09 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the
>> list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated
>> it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than
>> saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
>> John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come
>> around to Hank's way of thinking."
>> Me: "But...oh, never mind.
>Evolution is exaclty this way of circular reasoning. It is true
>because it is science-backed, it's science backed because it is
>appearently supported by evidience, and evidence must support it
>because it is true?
I have no doubt that's how you perceive it. The problem is with your
perception, not with science. Lots of people look for evidence to
confirm their assumptions, but science, by design, looks for evidence
to *contradict* hypotheses. And... surprise surprise... it often find
it.
> On Oct 1, 6:09 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the
> > list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated
> > it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than
> > saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
> > John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come
> > around to Hank's way of thinking."
> > Me: "But...oh, never mind.
> Evolution is exaclty this way of circular reasoning. It is true
> because it is science-backed, it's science backed because it is
> appearently supported by evidience, and evidence must support it
> because it is true?
no. Evolution is science/true because evolution is backed by the
evidence. This isn't hard.
> On 1 Oct, 14:19, Eugene Willow <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 1, 6:09 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the
> > > list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated
> > > it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than
> > > saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
> > > John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come
> > > around to Hank's way of thinking."
> > > Me: "But...oh, never mind.
> > Evolution is exaclty this way of circular reasoning. It is true
> > because it is science-backed, it's science backed because it is
> > appearently supported by evidience, and evidence must support it
> > because it is true?
> Not really, but maybe with 4.5 billion years of practice you can be as
> good a wordsmith as Dembski. Start with using the word "Darwinism"
> instead of evolution.
No, because I don't want them to use the term "willowism" for CP.
> On Oct 1, 7:19 pm, Eugene Willow <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 1, 6:09 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the
> > > list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated
> > > it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than
> > > saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
> > > John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come
> > > around to Hank's way of thinking."
> > > Me: "But...oh, never mind.
> > Evolution is exaclty this way of circular reasoning. It is true
> > because it is science-backed, it's science backed because it is
> > appearently supported by evidience, and evidence must support it
> > because it is true?
> no. Evolution is science/true because evolution is backed by the
> evidence. This isn't hard.
> On 2 Oct, 07:39, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Oct 1, 7:19 pm, Eugene Willow <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 1, 6:09 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the
> > > > list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated
> > > > it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than
> > > > saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
> > > > John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come
> > > > around to Hank's way of thinking."
> > > > Me: "But...oh, never mind.
> > > Evolution is exaclty this way of circular reasoning. It is true
> > > because it is science-backed, it's science backed because it is
> > > appearently supported by evidience, and evidence must support it
> > > because it is true?
> > no. Evolution is science/true because evolution is backed by the
> > evidence. This isn't hard.
> And why should the evidence be true?
The door is over there, try exiting, turning your brain on, and then
coming back in.
> On Oct 1, 6:09 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the
> > list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated
> > it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than
> > saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
> > John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come
> > around to Hank's way of thinking."
> > Me: "But...oh, never mind.
> Evolution is exaclty this way of circular reasoning. It is true
> because it is science-backed, it's science backed because it is
> appearently supported by evidience, and evidence must support it
> because it is true?
the allegory of wiki trix refers more to god and his holly books, than
to science and evolution.
science and evolution is quite another story.
Science is a method to understand some elements of nature, not all, for our science is not such powerful to explain it all.
in the case of evolution, the idea probably started after watching the different appearances of dogs, hens, doves and other domestic animals, like
horses, and other.
Then, for one that one day start to look at the amazing different forms a dog can have, we start to have the idea that most animals could change
in large periods of time. This would also explain why some animals are so similar to other, like chimps to humans, by example. Then, Darwin saw
some fossil of an animal that look like other living one that was much
smaller, etc. This fossil, a sloth if I remember correctly, was much bigger
than present sloths living then. So, these observations were maturing the
idea of the theory of evolution.
We have accumulated so many data, we each time we are more convinced that
evolution is a sound theory.
It is not a mater of being true or false in absolute terms, for the word
truth is never used in science. It is the master liars of the universe
those that use constantly the word truth. Then the most false is a doctrine, the more it needs to use the word
truth.
>On 2 Oct, 07:39, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Oct 1, 7:19 pm, Eugene Willow <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Oct 1, 6:09 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > <snip>
>> > > Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the
>> > > list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated
>> > > it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than
>> > > saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
>> > > John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come
>> > > around to Hank's way of thinking."
>> > > Me: "But...oh, never mind.
>> > Evolution is exaclty this way of circular reasoning. It is true
>> > because it is science-backed, it's science backed because it is
>> > appearently supported by evidience, and evidence must support it
>> > because it is true?
>> no. Evolution is science/true because evolution is backed by the
>> evidence. This isn't hard.
>And why should the evidence be true?
No reason; that's why finding *all* the evidence (that's
"evidence", not "hearsay" or "unsupported testimony") is so
important when trying to determine reality. And since you
brought it up, please post the evidence which contradicts
evolutionary theory here:
........
Thanks.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
> On 2 Oct, 07:39, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Oct 1, 7:19 pm, Eugene Willow <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 1, 6:09 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>> Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the
>>>> list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated
>>>> it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than
>>>> saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
>>>> John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come
>>>> around to Hank's way of thinking."
>>>> Me: "But...oh, never mind.
>>> Evolution is exaclty this way of circular reasoning. It is true
>>> because it is science-backed, it's science backed because it is
>>> appearently supported by evidience, and evidence must support it
>>> because it is true?
>> no. Evolution is science/true because evolution is backed by the
>> evidence. This isn't hard.
> And why should the evidence be true?
See, that's the catch: The only underlying metaphysical assumption of the scientific method is that evidence MEANS something, that studying the world can help us understand it.
You're free to take the counter-position instead, that reality is all a lie and (for example) we're just brains in tanks being fed false data by malicious and unknown entities. Substitute your own preferred nihilistic fantasy, if you like. But "reality is a lie, evidence is meaningless" hasn't led to any useful discoveries or technologies.
The computer with which you read this was designed and built around the "evidence means something" assumption at every step, from where and how to obtain the raw materials to designing the software once the hardware is built. That the computer does, in fact, WORK, and allows you to read a message from hundreds or thousands of miles away is strong confirmation that "evidence means something" is, in fact, a correct and valuable metaphysical assumption.
-- [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." ļæ½ Rudyard Kipling
> > On 2 Oct, 07:39, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Oct 1, 7:19 pm, Eugene Willow <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Oct 1, 6:09 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>> Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the
> >>>> list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated
> >>>> it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than
> >>>> saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
> >>>> John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come
> >>>> around to Hank's way of thinking."
> >>>> Me: "But...oh, never mind.
> >>> Evolution is exaclty this way of circular reasoning. It is true
> >>> because it is science-backed, it's science backed because it is
> >>> appearently supported by evidience, and evidence must support it
> >>> because it is true?
> >> no. Evolution is science/true because evolution is backed by the
> >> evidence. This isn't hard.
> > And why should the evidence be true?
> See, that's the catch: The only underlying metaphysical assumption of
> the scientific method is that evidence MEANS something, that studying
> the world can help us understand it.
> You're free to take the counter-position instead, that reality is all a
> lie and (for example) we're just brains in tanks being fed false data by
> malicious and unknown entities. Substitute your own preferred nihilistic
> fantasy, if you like. But "reality is a lie, evidence is meaningless"
> hasn't led to any useful discoveries or technologies.
But if reality is a lie and is meaningless, then all apparently useful
discoveries and technologies are bogus. Nihilism is as at least as
self-consistent as realism. The only problem is that, like everything
else, the idea that reality is a lie and is meaningless would itself
be a lie and would be meaningless.
> The computer with which you read this was designed and built around the
> "evidence means something" assumption at every step, from where and how
> to obtain the raw materials to designing the software once the hardware
> is built. That the computer does, in fact, WORK, and allows you to read
> a message from hundreds or thousands of miles away is strong
> confirmation that "evidence means something" is, in fact, a correct and
> valuable metaphysical assumption.
Eugene Willow <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Evolution is exaclty this way of circular reasoning. It is true
> because it is science-backed, it's science backed because it is
> appearently supported by evidience, and evidence must support it
> because it is true?
Hello, TOR using person. Wouldn't be a spintronic sockpuppet would we?
Feel free to contact me if you're not really spinny, no offense.
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 22:55:35 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by David Iain Greig
<dgr...@ediacara.org>:
>Eugene Willow <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Evolution is exaclty this way of circular reasoning. It is true
>> because it is science-backed, it's science backed because it is
>> appearently supported by evidience, and evidence must support it
>> because it is true?
>Hello, TOR using person. Wouldn't be a spintronic sockpuppet would we?
His posts don't sound (to me) like Spinny, and although that
could be a disguise Spinny never gave me the feeling that he
was rational enough to either see the need for one or to
invent a plausible one. I could, of course, be wrong...
>Feel free to contact me if you're not really spinny, no offense.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
>On Tue, 2 Oct 2012 10:31:46 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Eugene Willow
><willowe1...@hotmail.com>:
>>On 2 Oct, 07:39, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>> On Oct 1, 7:19 pm, Eugene Willow <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On Oct 1, 6:09 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > <snip>
>>> > > Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the
>>> > > list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated
>>> > > it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than
>>> > > saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
>>> > > John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come
>>> > > around to Hank's way of thinking."
>>> > > Me: "But...oh, never mind.
>>> > Evolution is exaclty this way of circular reasoning. It is true
>>> > because it is science-backed, it's science backed because it is
>>> > appearently supported by evidience, and evidence must support it
>>> > because it is true?
>>> no. Evolution is science/true because evolution is backed by the
>>> evidence. This isn't hard.
>>And why should the evidence be true?
>No reason; that's why finding *all* the evidence (that's
>"evidence", not "hearsay" or "unsupported testimony") is so
>important when trying to determine reality. And since you
>brought it up, please post the evidence which contradicts
>evolutionary theory here:
>........
>Thanks.
Having problems organizing that vast store of evidence for
display? No problem; take your time. I've been waiting years
for some others...Ray Martinez And Tony Pagano come strongly
to mind.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
> >> Evolution is exaclty this way of circular reasoning. It is true
> >> because it is science-backed, it's science backed because it is
> >> appearently supported by evidience, and evidence must support it
> >> because it is true?
> >Hello, TOR using person. Wouldn't be a spintronic sockpuppet would we?
> His posts don't sound (to me) like Spinny, and although that
> could be a disguise Spinny never gave me the feeling that he
> was rational enough to either see the need for one or to
> invent a plausible one. I could, of course, be wrong...
One need not be rational to see the need for disguise, nor does one need to be
rational in order to invent one. Irrational individuals may not in general be
cunning enough to create and maintain an effective disguise, but not impossible.
You are wrong.
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:6jlr685vs6k6ob3qepoipqcedslnn11i1i@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 22:55:35 +0000 (UTC), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by David Iain Greig
>> <dgr...@ediacara.org>:
>> >> Evolution is exaclty this way of circular reasoning. It is true
>> >> because it is science-backed, it's science backed because it is
>> >> appearently supported by evidience, and evidence must support it
>> >> because it is true?
>> >Hello, TOR using person. Wouldn't be a spintronic sockpuppet would we?
>> His posts don't sound (to me) like Spinny, and although that
>> could be a disguise Spinny never gave me the feeling that he
>> was rational enough to either see the need for one or to
>> invent a plausible one. I could, of course, be wrong...
>One need not be rational to see the need for disguise, nor does one need to be
>rational in order to invent one. Irrational individuals may not in general be
>cunning enough to create and maintain an effective disguise, but not impossible.
>You are wrong.
....as I noted as a possibility.
Perhaps I conflated "rational" and "mentally competent". Mea
culpa.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 11:46:22 -0700, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
> <glennshel...@invalid.invalid>:
> >"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
> >news:6jlr685vs6k6ob3qepoipqcedslnn11i1i@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 22:55:35 +0000 (UTC), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by David Iain Greig
> >> <dgr...@ediacara.org>:
> >> >> Evolution is exaclty this way of circular reasoning. It is true
> >> >> because it is science-backed, it's science backed because it is
> >> >> appearently supported by evidience, and evidence must support it
> >> >> because it is true?
> >> >Hello, TOR using person. Wouldn't be a spintronic sockpuppet would we?
> >> His posts don't sound (to me) like Spinny, and although that
> >> could be a disguise Spinny never gave me the feeling that he
> >> was rational enough to either see the need for one or to
> >> invent a plausible one. I could, of course, be wrong...
> >One need not be rational to see the need for disguise, nor does one need to
be
> >rational in order to invent one. Irrational individuals may not in general be
> >cunning enough to create and maintain an effective disguise, but not
impossible.
> >You are wrong.
> ....as I noted as a possibility.
> Perhaps I conflated "rational" and "mentally competent". Mea
> culpa.
> --
> On 2 Oct, 07:39, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Oct 1, 7:19 pm, Eugene Willow <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 1, 6:09 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the
> > > > list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated
> > > > it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than
> > > > saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
> > > > John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come
> > > > around to Hank's way of thinking."
> > > > Me: "But...oh, never mind.
> > > Evolution is exaclty this way of circular reasoning. It is true
> > > because it is science-backed, it's science backed because it is
> > > appearently supported by evidience, and evidence must support it
> > > because it is true?
> > no. Evolution is science/true because evolution is backed by the
> > evidence. This isn't hard.
> And why should the evidence be true?
du what?!
in science (and everyday life) we examine evidence to work out what
happened (what is true). If you don't want to do this then you aren't
practicing science- or common sense.
On Oct 2, 8:54 pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> El lunes, 1 de octubre de 2012 19:19:47 UTC+1, Eugene Willow escribi :
> > On Oct 1, 6:09 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > > Me: "But...oh, never mind.
apparently wiki trix was posting a joke or funny story. people even
claimed to have heard it before. I'm afraid the humour completly
passed me by...
> > Evolution is exaclty this way of circular reasoning. It is true
> > because it is science-backed, it's science backed because it is
> > appearently supported by evidience, and evidence must support it
> > because it is true?
> the allegory of wiki trix refers more to god and his holly books, than
> to science and evolution.
I think you're right.
> science and evolution is quite another story.
> Science is a method to understand some elements of nature, not all, for
> our science is not such powerful to explain it all.
it's the best tool we have at the moment.
> in the case of evolution, the idea probably started after watching the
> different appearances of dogs, hens, doves and other domestic animals, like
> horses, and other.
Darwin's Origins does indeed start with domesticated species. he was a
keen pigeon breeder himself.
> Then, for one that one day start to look at the amazing different forms
> a dog can have, we start to have the idea that most animals could change
> in large periods of time. This would also explain why some animals are
> so similar to other, like chimps to humans, by example.
it's not just a superficial resemblance it's a very deep resemblance.
Right down to the DNA.
> Then, Darwin saw
> some fossil of an animal that look like other living one that was much
> smaller, etc. This fossil, a sloth if I remember correctly, was much bigger
> than present sloths living then. So, these observations were maturing the
> idea of the theory of evolution.
> We have accumulated so many data, we each time we are more convinced that
> evolution is a sound theory.
> It is not a mater of being true or false in absolute terms, for the word
> truth is never used in science.
but sometimes the pile of evidence is enourmous that any reasonable
man would take theory to be an accurate description of what is
actually taking place. I'm happy to call that "truth".
> It is the master liars of the universe
> those that use constantly the word truth.
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:ur7u6812sr2qtuaqf6brcsk6226pcdvcj4@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 11:46:22 -0700, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
>> <glennshel...@invalid.invalid>:
>> >"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
>> >news:6jlr685vs6k6ob3qepoipqcedslnn11i1i@4ax.com...
>> >> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 22:55:35 +0000 (UTC), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by David Iain Greig
>> >> <dgr...@ediacara.org>:
>> >> >> Evolution is exaclty this way of circular reasoning. It is true
>> >> >> because it is science-backed, it's science backed because it is
>> >> >> appearently supported by evidience, and evidence must support it
>> >> >> because it is true?
>> >> >Hello, TOR using person. Wouldn't be a spintronic sockpuppet would we?
>> >> His posts don't sound (to me) like Spinny, and although that
>> >> could be a disguise Spinny never gave me the feeling that he
>> >> was rational enough to either see the need for one or to
>> >> invent a plausible one. I could, of course, be wrong...
>> >One need not be rational to see the need for disguise, nor does one need to
>be
>> >rational in order to invent one. Irrational individuals may not in general be
>> >cunning enough to create and maintain an effective disguise, but not
>impossible.
>> >You are wrong.
>> ....as I noted as a possibility.
>> Perhaps I conflated "rational" and "mentally competent". Mea
>> culpa.
>But you could be wrong.
In the sense of "I thought once that I was wrong, but I was
mistaken"?
Well, of course... ;-)
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
> On Oct 2, 8:54 pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > El lunes, 1 de octubre de 2012 19:19:47 UTC+1, Eugene Willow escribi :
> > > On Oct 1, 6:09 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > > > Me: "But...oh, never mind.
> apparently wiki trix was posting a joke or funny story. people even
> claimed to have heard it before. I'm afraid the humour completly
> passed me by...
> > > Evolution is exaclty this way of circular reasoning. It is true
> > > because it is science-backed, it's science backed because it is
> > > appearently supported by evidience, and evidence must support it
> > > because it is true?
> > the allegory of wiki trix refers more to god and his holly books, than
> > to science and evolution.
> I think you're right.
> > science and evolution is quite another story.
> > Science is a method to understand some elements of nature, not all, for
> > our science is not such powerful to explain it all.
> it's the best tool we have at the moment.
> > in the case of evolution, the idea probably started after watching the
> > different appearances of dogs, hens, doves and other domestic animals, like
> > horses, and other.
> Darwin's Origins does indeed start with domesticated species. he was a
> keen pigeon breeder himself.
> > Then, for one that one day start to look at the amazing different forms
> > a dog can have, we start to have the idea that most animals could change
> > in large periods of time. This would also explain why some animals are
> > so similar to other, like chimps to humans, by example.
> it's not just a superficial resemblance it's a very deep resemblance.
> Right down to the DNA.
> > Then, Darwin saw
> > some fossil of an animal that look like other living one that was much
> > smaller, etc. This fossil, a sloth if I remember correctly, was much bigger
> > than present sloths living then. So, these observations were maturing the
> > idea of the theory of evolution.
> > We have accumulated so many data, we each time we are more convinced that
> > evolution is a sound theory.
> > It is not a mater of being true or false in absolute terms, for the word
> > truth is never used in science.
> but sometimes the pile of evidence is enourmous that any reasonable
> man would take theory to be an accurate description of what is
> actually taking place. I'm happy to call that "truth".
But only a liar is compelled to speak of truth so often. Of course in daily life we use the word truth, but it is not needed in science. Theories look good, or sound, and they look as worthy
of our trust, but I do not see of good taste to call any science theory "a truth". This 'cause by my conditioned reflex, you know? the word truth rings badly in my brain. It pertains more to the jargon of religious people than to scientists.
> > It is the master liars of the universe
> > those that use constantly the word truth.
