Paul Krugman on Arguments From Personal Incredulity
Mitchell Coffey
Paul Krugman on his blog today (24 August 2011) discusses Arguments From
Personal Incredulity. As appropriate, he begins by citing Richard
Dawkins' comments about "anti-evolution types" and the evolution of the
human eye:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
Worthwhile quotes:
"The point, of course, is that your personal incredulity counts for
nothing. I’m basing what I say on a model; the model may not be right,
but it does represent some hard thinking conditioned by evidence. If you
have a different model, fine; but if all you have to counter my model is
a set of prejudices, you don’t have an argument."
"[I]f you just can’t believe I’m saying the things I say, at least
consider the possibility that you’re the one who just doesn’t get it."
Mitchell Coffey
Burkhard
wrote:
> Paul Krugman on his blog today (24 August 2011) discusses Arguments From
> Personal Incredulity. As appropriate, he begins by citing Richard
> Dawkins' comments about "anti-evolution types" and the evolution of the
> human eye:
>
> http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
>
> Worthwhile quotes:
>
> "The point, of course, is that your personal incredulity counts for
> nothing.
Well, for a Bayesian e.g., they count for quite a lot. It's what you
do with them that matters
Mitchell Coffey
> On Aug 24, 10:01 pm, Mitchell Coffey<mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Paul Krugman on his blog today (24 August 2011) discusses Arguments From
>> Personal Incredulity. As appropriate, he begins by citing Richard
>> Dawkins' comments about "anti-evolution types" and the evolution of the
>> human eye:
>>
>> http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
>>
>> Worthwhile quotes:
>>
>> "The point, of course, is that your personal incredulity counts for
>> nothing.
>
> Well, for a Bayesian e.g., they count for quite a lot. It's what you
> do with them that matters
I don't think you're supposed to call it "incredulity," at least in
writing. Except among friends I think you say "priors."
Mitchell Coffey
Carl Kaufmann
> On Aug 24, 10:01 pm, Mitchell Coffey<mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Paul Krugman on his blog today (24 August 2011) discusses Arguments From
>> Personal Incredulity. As appropriate, he begins by citing Richard
>> Dawkins' comments about "anti-evolution types" and the evolution of the
>> human eye:
>>
>> http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
>>
>> Worthwhile quotes:
>>
>> "The point, of course, is that your personal incredulity counts for
>> nothing.
>
> Well, for a Bayesian e.g., they count for quite a lot. It's what you
> do with them that matters
Up until reality slaps your face. :-)
Some people never get past their priors.
> I’m basing what I say on a model; the model may not be right,
>> but it does represent some hard thinking conditioned by evidence. If you
>> have a different model, fine; but if all you have to counter my model is
>> a set of prejudices, you don’t have an argument."
>>
>> "[I]f you just can’t believe I’m saying the things I say, at least
>> consider the possibility that you’re the one who just doesn’t get it."
>>
>> Mitchell Coffey
Carl
Richard Harter
Then again there is the possibility that Paul Krugman just doesn't get
it. (To be blunt, I get the impression that Krugman has ever
considered that proposition.) That said, there is an issue here.
Let's say I'm Joe Boob and Mr. Wisdom tells me something that just
doesn't sound right to me and I say so. Mr. Wisdom parrots the
Krugman line. The problem is I have my own model - it's implicit in
my experience of the world. My incredulity is not just "a set of
prejudices", it from what I have learned, what I have experienced, and
what I have I concluded from my experiences. Joe Boob has his own
model, too, and don't you forget it.
That said, Joe Boob, isn't likely to invest a whole lot of time and
thought into the questions at hand. Krugman presumably has. The odds
are long that he has the right of it (except in politics, of course,
he's never in the right.) That isn't the point though.
The point is that Krugman and many intellectuals occupy a stance of
dismissive comtemptuous condescending arrogance. Always a good thing,
of course, if you can pull it off. If a man can't sneer
magnificantly, what good is he. Still, while it is very satisfying
and entertaining to the onlookers, it is a form of mental
masturbation. Mr. Wisdom pats his back as he sits in a pubble of
self-admiration whilst Joe Boob mutters to himself, "What an asshole."
Anthony022071
wrote:
freedoms if he were a in a position of governmental power.
Personal incredulity does count for the person who is incredulous,and
for the person who wants to persuade others of a theory
but is constantly confronted with incredulity,and for the person whose
livelihood and reputation depends upon the favor of others who can
employ him and promote him or exclude him from employment and
discredit him. If a model is not logical,making sound connection
between effects and proper causes,it does not matter if it is the
result of hard thinking conditioned by evidence. What would become of
the theory of evolution if the majority of people came to firmly
disbelieve it and the schools ceased to hire teachers who taught it,or
if government and corporate funding for evolutionists was stopped? The
wide-spead popularity of evolution theory in Western civilization
depends upon the professional positions and credibility of those who
teach and promote it. People tend to defer to the opinions of highly-
paid professionals,and are at a disadvantage in contradicting them.
The theory would lose its credibility if the professionals who teach
and promote it lost their professional status. It cannot survive in
popular opinion on its own merits,but the doctrine of creation and
divine providence can.
Richard Harter
Cheese, the least I could do is edit this trash.
Darwin123
wrote:
It cannot survive in
> popular opinion on its own merits,but the doctrine of creation and
> divine providence can.
one considers wishful thinking a merit, then it will survive on
merit.
Few of us want to die a permanent death. The idea of oblivion is
scary and painful. However, the physical world really does not provide
any option. People will do almost anything to ensure a reasonably
happy after life that lasts forever.
People would also like to have an end to history. They would like
all conflicts resolved, forever. They would like to think that they
would not need to ever make a moral decision again. Therefore, the end
of days is also a popular concept.
Wishful thinking is an entranced interest. People want these things
far more than they want money, power or sex. The professionals who
study science would also love these an eternal life and an end to
decision. However, what leads them away is logic, evidence, and so
forth. However, I agree that in the long run wishful thinking always
wins out with the majority.
Therefore, I propose that we leave wishful thinking to those
that need it. It hardly needs any help from scientists. However, I
think that wishful thinking is strong enough that it will survive a
solid scientific foundation.
Scientists can still solve some of the problems of humanity as
well as make new ones as long as wishful thinking is kept out of
scientific investigation. Cognitive dissonance can make wishful
thinking and rational investigation live side by side.
Just don't claim that wishful thinking is the same as rationality.
Even when wishful thinking takes over, it is never rational.
There is no logic to the YEC position. There is only wishful
thinking. Their position is basically a total rejection of rational
investigation. Myself, I am happy with countering their bald faced
lies. I have no wish to push my position on anyone. Sometimes, to keep
sane a give in to wishful thinking. However, I would never ban the
education of rational education.
Kleuskes & Moos
> On Aug 24, 4:01 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Paul Krugman on his blog today (24 August 2011) discusses Arguments
>> From Personal Incredulity. As appropriate, he begins by citing Richard
>> Dawkins' comments about "anti-evolution types" and the evolution of the
>> human eye:
>>
>> http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
>>
>> Worthwhile quotes:
>>
>> "The point, of course, is that your personal incredulity counts for
>> nothing. I’m basing what I say on a model; the model may not be right,
>> but it does represent some hard thinking conditioned by evidence. If
>> you have a different model, fine; but if all you have to counter my
>> model is a set of prejudices, you don’t have an argument."
>>
>> "[I]f you just can’t believe I’m saying the things I say, at least
>> consider the possibility that you’re the one who just doesn’t get it."
>>
>> Mitchell Coffey
>>
> Paul Krugman is a socialist goof.
Is that "socialist" the political conviction or "socialist" the
pejorative because nothing else comes to mind and "Pinko-Commie-Rat" went
out of fashion?
> He would be dangerous for people's
> freedoms if he were a in a position of governmental power.
Bwaaahh... I think a lot of people think the same with regard to
religious fundies worldwide and with better grounds.
> Personal incredulity does count for the person who is incredulous,and
> for the person who wants to persuade others of a theory but is
> constantly confronted with incredulity,and for the person whose
> livelihood and reputation depends upon the favor of others who can
> employ him and promote him or exclude him from employment and discredit
> him.
So personal incredulity matters if you can get fired/demoted/jeered at
for disagreeing with your boss/family/pastor? Talk about a threat to
personal freedoms...
> If a model is not logical, making sound connection between effects
> and proper causes,it does not matter if it is the result of hard
> thinking conditioned by evidence.
What, in your opinion, is/are
- logical
- proper causes
- sound connections?
Without a proper definition, the above is a meaningless jumble of words.
> What would become of the theory of
> evolution if the majority of people came to firmly disbelieve it and the
> schools ceased to hire teachers who taught it,or if government and
> corporate funding for evolutionists was stopped?
Mother nature will show us she does not like to be ignored and bite us in
the pars posterior, since public disbelief does not change any facts and
pathogens will _still_ aquire resistance to antibiotics. Only in yur
scenario, we'd have lost the capability to explain it, predict it and
take measures agains it.
> The wide-spead
> popularity of evolution theory in Western civilization depends upon the
> professional positions and credibility of those who teach and promote
> it.
That and some very practical results in agriculture, medicine and
computer-science. Most of all it depends on a sound model that explains
the facts we all see every day.
> People tend to defer to the opinions of highly- paid
> professionals, and are at a disadvantage in contradicting them.
The "highly payed" comes after "studied hard and made some sinificant
contribution to the sum of human knowlegde".
> The theory would lose its credibility if the professionals who teach and
> promote it lost their professional status. It cannot survive in popular
> opinion on its own merits,but the doctrine of creation and divine
> providence can.
So basically your argueing we should fire all scientists, cancel all
funding to science and happily go back to whatever the dumbest shithead
in the population believes. Talk about a plea for the Dark Ages...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________________
< TAILFINS!! ... click ... >
--------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron O
wrote:
> On Aug 24, 4:01 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Paul Krugman on his blog today (24 August 2011) discusses Arguments From
> > Personal Incredulity. As appropriate, he begins by citing Richard
> > Dawkins' comments about "anti-evolution types" and the evolution of the
> > human eye:
>
> >http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
>
> > Worthwhile quotes:
>
> > "The point, of course, is that your personal incredulity counts for
> > nothing. I’m basing what I say on a model; the model may not be right,
> > but it does represent some hard thinking conditioned by evidence. If you
> > have a different model, fine; but if all you have to counter my model is
> > a set of prejudices, you don’t have an argument."
>
> > "[I]f you just can’t believe I’m saying the things I say, at least
> > consider the possibility that you’re the one who just doesn’t get it."
>
> > Mitchell Coffey
>
> Paul Krugman is a socialist goof. He would be dangerous for people's
> freedoms if he were a in a position of governmental power.
That is the problem that the creatoid IDiots have. Even the goof
balls can make them look like losers. This is actually dangerous for
any real discussion on the topic, and any hope of achieving a balance
of realistic views. Any goofball that sides with the science side is
likely to be right more often than the science deniers. This is
apparent in the creation evolution "controversy." The science deniers
have it so wrong that the goofballs can make them look as pathetic as
they are. All the goofballs have to do is parrot what they hear the
proscience side produce and they are usually golden. The anti science
side only has goofballs and the morally challenged to listen too, so
they get screwed by repeating the nonsense.
>
> Personal incredulity does count for the person who is incredulous,and
> for the person who wants to persuade others of a theory
> but is constantly confronted with incredulity,and for the person whose
> livelihood and reputation depends upon the favor of others who can
> employ him and promote him or exclude him from employment and
> discredit him. If a model is not logical,making sound connection
> between effects and proper causes,it does not matter if it is the
> result of hard thinking conditioned by evidence. What would become of
> the theory of evolution if the majority of people came to firmly
> disbelieve it and the schools ceased to hire teachers who taught it,or
> if government and corporate funding for evolutionists was stopped? The
> wide-spead popularity of evolution theory in Western civilization
> depends upon the professional positions and credibility of those who
> teach and promote it. People tend to defer to the opinions of highly-
> paid professionals,and are at a disadvantage in contradicting them.
> The theory would lose its credibility if the professionals who teach
> and promote it lost their professional status. It cannot survive in
> popular opinion on its own merits,but the doctrine of creation and
> divine providence can.-
Scientists pretty much exist because we don't know everything, but
that is very different from not knowing anything. Understanding what
you don't understand is what keeps science moving forward. The
goofball anti science IDiots only want to freeze the situation as it
was centuries ago when their incredulity mattered. It is just a fact
that they do not want to add anything to our existing knowledge base.
They only want to claim that what we already know doesn't matter, so
their biased and unsupported beliefs still matter. What is the teach
the controversy creationist scam supposed to do? Why is it that when
you look at the scam you can't find any mention of creationism nor
intelligent design in the scam? If the IDiot rubes that bend over and
take the switch scam from the ID perps whom they know lied to them
about the science of intelligent design are not willing to put forward
anything new and scientifically support it, why should that
controversy be taught? What is the use of teaching what we don't know
when we should be teaching what we do know? We don't teach high
school students very much cutting edge science. So much is known that
we can only skim the surface. We try to teach them the basics so that
they might be able to understand more of the science that they
encounter later.
Ron Okimoto
Steven L.
"Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:j33ork$48c$1...@dont-email.me:
I agree--when there are hard-science models involved.
But I sure hope that Krugman isn't attempting to draw an analogy between
the models of biology/geology/astronomy and the models of political
science/political economy, which is what Krugman's columns are usually
about.
The models of biology/geology/astronomy work because there's a physical
reality out there that is *independent* of human behavior. The Earth
continued to revolve around the Sun (sorry Pagano), long before humans
evolved, after humans developed a civilization, in wartime and
peacetime, in inflation and recession. And if humans go extinct, the
Earth will continue to revolve around the Sun.
The models of political economy are far less trustworthy, IMHO, because
they're dealing with human behavior as it relates to allocation of
resources. And human behavior has so far proven very hard to model to
the point that long-term predictions become possible. Malthus tried
and failed. Marx tried and failed. The Club of Rome tried and failed.
"If all the world's economists were laid end to end, they would point in
all directions"
-- Anon
-- Steven L.
Mitchell Coffey
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:01:19 -0400, Mitchell Coffey
> <mitchell...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Paul Krugman on his blog today (24 August 2011) discusses Arguments From
>> Personal Incredulity. As appropriate, he begins by citing Richard
>> Dawkins' comments about "anti-evolution types" and the evolution of the
>> human eye:
>>
>> http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
>>
>> Worthwhile quotes:
>>
>> "The point, of course, is that your personal incredulity counts for
>> but it does represent some hard thinking conditioned by evidence. If you
>> have a different model, fine; but if all you have to counter my model is
>>
>> "[I]f you just can�t believe I�m saying the things I say, at least
>> consider the possibility that you�re the one who just doesn�t get it."
>
> Then again there is the possibility that Paul Krugman just doesn't get
> it. (To be blunt, I get the impression that Krugman has ever
> considered that proposition.) That said, there is an issue here.
> Let's say I'm Joe Boob and Mr. Wisdom tells me something that just
> doesn't sound right to me and I say so. Mr. Wisdom parrots the
> Krugman line. The problem is I have my own model - it's implicit in
> my experience of the world. My incredulity is not just "a set of
> prejudices", it from what I have learned, what I have experienced, and
> what I have I concluded from my experiences. Joe Boob has his own
> model, too, and don't you forget it.
>
> That said, Joe Boob, isn't likely to invest a whole lot of time and
> thought into the questions at hand. Krugman presumably has. The odds
> are long that he has the right of it (except in politics, of course,
> he's never in the right.) That isn't the point though.
>
> The point is that Krugman and many intellectuals occupy a stance of
> dismissive comtemptuous condescending arrogance. Always a good thing,
> of course, if you can pull it off. If a man can't sneer
> magnificantly, what good is he. Still, while it is very satisfying
> and entertaining to the onlookers, it is a form of mental
> masturbation. Mr. Wisdom pats his back as he sits in a pubble of
> self-admiration whilst Joe Boob mutters to himself, "What an asshole."
On issues of economics, Paul Krugman has much to be contemptuous,
condescending and arrogant about. Yeah, Krugman is impolitic, but you
need to experience how most other economists comport themselves in public.
A problem with your complaint is that in the context of Krugman's
remarks it is relatively well-educated people who are committing the
fallacies. You don't have to accept received wisdom on the Paradox of
Thrift, for instance, but it has been received wisdom since the 1930s.
There really is no excuse for asserting ones own authority with not
bothering to understand the basics of what you're arguing against.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
Why? Don't you have better things to do? Does my trash read like I waste
time editing it?
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
> On Aug 24, 4:01 pm, Mitchell Coffey<mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Paul Krugman on his blog today (24 August 2011) discusses Arguments From
>> Personal Incredulity. As appropriate, he begins by citing Richard
>> Dawkins' comments about "anti-evolution types" and the evolution of the
>> human eye:
>>
>> http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
>>
>> Worthwhile quotes:
>>
>> "The point, of course, is that your personal incredulity counts for
>> nothing. I’m basing what I say on a model; the model may not be right,
>> but it does represent some hard thinking conditioned by evidence. If you
>> have a different model, fine; but if all you have to counter my model is
>> a set of prejudices, you don’t have an argument."
>>
>> "[I]f you just can’t believe I’m saying the things I say, at least
>> consider the possibility that you’re the one who just doesn’t get it."
>>
>> Mitchell Coffey
>>
> Paul Krugman is a socialist goof. He would be dangerous for people's
> freedoms if he were a in a position of governmental power.
I hold to the testable theory that you have little or no understanding
of the relevant models Krugman is referring to.
> Personal incredulity does count for the person who is incredulous,and
> for the person who wants to persuade others of a theory
> but is constantly confronted with incredulity,and for the person whose
> livelihood and reputation depends upon the favor of others who can
> employ him and promote him or exclude him from employment and
> discredit him. If a model is not logical,making sound connection
> between effects and proper causes,it does not matter if it is the
> result of hard thinking conditioned by evidence. What would become of
> the theory of evolution if the majority of people came to firmly
> disbelieve it and the schools ceased to hire teachers who taught it,or
> if government and corporate funding for evolutionists was stopped? The
> wide-spead popularity of evolution theory in Western civilization
> depends upon the professional positions and credibility of those who
> teach and promote it. People tend to defer to the opinions of highly-
> paid professionals,and are at a disadvantage in contradicting them.
> The theory would lose its credibility if the professionals who teach
> and promote it lost their professional status. It cannot survive in
> popular opinion on its own merits,but the doctrine of creation and
> divine providence can.
>
The wide-spead popularity of evolutionary theory depends on it's
validity as science. It isn't as hard as you imply. The fact that you
personably are unable to address it on the level of facts and logic, and
your reliance on arguments-from-personal-assertion, as above, derive
from it's validity as science.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
Actually, the Malthus' model is still useful almost two centuries later.
I doubt Krugman would disagree with your general point, but the models
in the context of his comments do are testable and falsifiable, so I
think his point holds.
Mitchell Coffey
Robert Camp
> On Aug 24, 4:01�pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Paul Krugman on his blog today (24 August 2011) discusses Arguments From
> > Personal Incredulity. As appropriate, he begins by citing Richard
> > Dawkins' comments about "anti-evolution types" and the evolution of the
> > human eye:
>
> >http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
>
> > Worthwhile quotes:
>
> > "The point, of course, is that your personal incredulity counts for
> > but it does represent some hard thinking conditioned by evidence. If you
> > have a different model, fine; but if all you have to counter my model is
>
> > "[I]f you just can�t believe I�m saying the things I say, at least
> > consider the possibility that you�re the one who just doesn�t get it."
>
> > Mitchell Coffey
>
> Paul Krugman is a socialist goof. He would be dangerous for people's
> freedoms if he were a in a position of governmental power.
Like much of the far right these days, you don't appear to have any
idea of what "socialism" means beyond "I don't like it, it makes me
mad."
> Personal incredulity does count for the person who is incredulous,and
> for the person who wants to persuade others of a theory
> but is constantly confronted with incredulity,and for the person whose
> livelihood and reputation depends upon the favor of others who can
> employ him and promote him or exclude him from employment and
> discredit him. If a model is not logical,making sound connection
> between effects and proper causes,it does not matter if it is the
> result of hard thinking conditioned by evidence. What would become of
> the theory of evolution if the majority of people came to firmly
> disbelieve it and the schools ceased to hire teachers who taught it,or
> if government and corporate funding for evolutionists was stopped? The
> wide-spead popularity of evolution theory in Western civilization
> depends upon the professional positions and credibility of those who
> teach and promote it. People tend to defer to the opinions of highly-
> paid professionals,and are at a disadvantage in contradicting them.
> The theory would lose its credibility if the professionals who teach
> and promote it lost their professional status. It cannot survive in
> popular opinion on its own merits,but the doctrine of creation and
> divine providence can.
Do you ever take the time to consider the consequences of your
arguments? It's quite clear at this point that your position on common
descent reduces to epistemological nihilism. Now above you are, in
essence, taking issue with the value of education, and even reason
itself.
One of the things we try to inculcate in our children as they mature
cognitively is that beliefs and perspectives become meaningless if
they are entirely situationally convenient. It might be worth thinking
a little about intellectual consistency, and how the lack of it
undermines some of your core beliefs.
RLC
Jeffrey Turner
>
> A problem with your complaint is that in the context of Krugman's
> remarks it is relatively well-educated people who are committing the
> fallacies. You don't have to accept received wisdom on the Paradox of
> Thrift, for instance, but it has been received wisdom since the 1930s.
> There really is no excuse for asserting ones own authority with not
> bothering to understand the basics of what you're arguing against.
The paradox of thrift (or paradox of saving) is a paradox of economics,
popularized by John Maynard Keynes, though it had been stated as early
as 1714 in The Fable of the Bees,[1] and similar sentiments date to
antiquity.[2][3]
Jeffrey Turner
Heck, the Bible is a relevant guide on recent American economics: "To he
that has, even more shall be given. From he who has not, even that
little shall be taken away." Everyone from Bernanke to Krugman agreed
on the basic outlines of the TARP. Greenspan said a year ago that the
Bush tax cuts shouldn't be extended. There are more cranks in economics
because it is tied to politics and therefor remunerative, but that
doesn't mean that we really don't know anything about economics and that
macroeconomics isn't predictive in (at least) broad brush outlines.
--Jeff
jillery
<rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 24, 8:50 pm, Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 24, 4:01 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Paul Krugman on his blog today (24 August 2011) discusses Arguments From
>> > Personal Incredulity. As appropriate, he begins by citing Richard
>> > Dawkins' comments about "anti-evolution types" and the evolution of the
>> > human eye:
>>
>> >http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
>>
>> > Worthwhile quotes:
>>
>> > "The point, of course, is that your personal incredulity counts for
>> > nothing. I’m basing what I say on a model; the model may not be right,
>> > but it does represent some hard thinking conditioned by evidence. If you
>> > have a different model, fine; but if all you have to counter my model is
>> > a set of prejudices, you don’t have an argument."
>>
>> > "[I]f you just can’t believe I’m saying the things I say, at least
>> > consider the possibility that you’re the one who just doesn’t get it."
I am reminded of the dirty looks and rolling eyes I got whenever I
spouted my mantra "where you stand on an issue shouldn't depend on
where you're sitting when it comes up."
Richard Harter
<mitchell...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 8/24/2011 7:30 PM, Richard Harter wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:01:19 -0400, Mitchell Coffey
>> <mitchell...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Paul Krugman on his blog today (24 August 2011) discusses Arguments From
>>> Personal Incredulity. As appropriate, he begins by citing Richard
>>> Dawkins' comments about "anti-evolution types" and the evolution of the
>>> human eye:
>>>
>>> http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
>>>
>>> Worthwhile quotes:
>>>
>>> "The point, of course, is that your personal incredulity counts for
>>> nothing. IīŋŊm basing what I say on a model; the model may not be right,
>>> but it does represent some hard thinking conditioned by evidence. If you
>>> have a different model, fine; but if all you have to counter my model is
>>> a set of prejudices, you donīŋŊt have an argument."
>>>
>>> "[I]f you just canīŋŊt believe IīŋŊm saying the things I say, at least
>>> consider the possibility that youīŋŊre the one who just doesnīŋŊt get it."
Well, no, that isn't the context. The quote is from
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/24/arguments-from-personal-incredulity/
and that mentions (a) anonymous dweebs who write and say dumb things
and (b) various anonymous important people (except the president) who
just don't understand what he thinks should be done. In short, this
is just trash talk, little better than McCarthy's 57 communists, er
flavors, on a laundry list.
"If you have a different model, fine; but if all you have to counter
my model is a set of prejudices, you donīŋŊt have an argument."
What is wrong with this is that people, even prejudiced bigots, do
have models. They may not be well spelled out and may be mere
flapdoodle when examined, but they underlie those "prejudices". It's
like those old conjugations,
I have a model.
You have a set of prejudices.
He is completely clueless.
Tim Norfolk
wrote:
<snip>
< People tend to defer to the opinions of highly-
> paid professionals,and are at a disadvantage in contradicting them.
> The theory would lose its credibility if the professionals who teach
> and promote it lost their professional status. It cannot survive in
> popular opinion on its own merits,but the doctrine of creation and
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you sure about that deference? What about AGW, evolution and
fiscal policy? Americans have a cultural distrust of expert opinion.
As for the second, picking evolution as an example: if it lost its
"professional status", it wouldn't alter the actuality, just the
perception. Unless you are a post-modernist, of course.
Mitchell Coffey
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:36:20 -0400, Mitchell Coffey
> <mitchell...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/24/2011 7:30 PM, Richard Harter wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:01:19 -0400, Mitchell Coffey
>>> <mitchell...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Paul Krugman on his blog today (24 August 2011) discusses Arguments From
>>>> Personal Incredulity. As appropriate, he begins by citing Richard
>>>> Dawkins' comments about "anti-evolution types" and the evolution of the
>>>> human eye:
>>>>
>>>> http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
>>>>
>>>> Worthwhile quotes:
>>>>
>>>> "The point, of course, is that your personal incredulity counts for
>>>> but it does represent some hard thinking conditioned by evidence. If you
>>>> have a different model, fine; but if all you have to counter my model is
>>>>
>>>> consider the possibility that you’re the one who just doesn’t get it."
>
> What is wrong with this is that people, even prejudiced bigots, do
> have models. They may not be well spelled out and may be mere
> flapdoodle when examined, but they underlie those "prejudices". It's
> like those old conjugations,
>
> I have a model.
> You have a set of prejudices.
> He is completely clueless.
He also mentions:
"I’m getting the same kind of thing a lot on issues macroeconomic.
People write and say, 'I can’t believe that you are asserting that X.
You must be an idiot.' Here X might be the paradox of thrift, the claim
that a rise in desired saving leads to lower investment (which is
closely linked to the case for fiscal stimulus, which in turn is closely
linked to the argument that wars and other bad things can be
expansionary.) Or it might be the paradox of flexibility, which says
that under current conditions a fall in wages would lead to lower,not
higher employment and output."
I took this as context. It's more specific than Talegunner Joe's
meanderings in re the Communist population in the State Department. He
also gives a link that links to a 33 page paper with math and
everything, giving a notion of the sort of thing he's talking about when
he says "model." No, it's not the same as a set of prejudices.
The context regarding his disrespecting the President is the fact that
the President does not have a model separate from Krugman; he is using
the same (general) model as Krugman; Obama didn't go for an original
stimulus as large as that model would indicate either because it was not
politically practical to do so, or because, Krugman claims (wrongly I
believe), he could not fathom that the problem was to wholly the one the
model indicated.
Mitchell Coffey
William Morse
You appear to completely miss the point. "Joe Boob" (and isn't that a
contemptuous characterization!) does in fact according to your argument
have a different model. Krugman allows for that. What he is complaining
about is personal incredulity, and I think he is right on that score.
Yours,
Bill
Richard Harter
<mitchell...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, I dare say he does get such missives. I would be quite shocked
if he didn't. The thing is, the anecdotage in his article is more
evidence for Krugman's state of mind and his feelings about others -
in other words explication and confirmation of his, you should excuse
the exprsssion, set of prejudices.
In that and similar articles, the content is all stage managed by the
author. The bad guys are sock puppets. The words of the sock puppets
may be those of real people, but the choice of words to report and the
tone that goes with them is the authors. This is not specific to
Krugman; it is the prevailing essay mode. Those who share the
author's prejudices applaud just as though something real was being
said, and choir sings hallelujah.
Richard Harter
Sniff. I am almost certain you must have read my post despite the
evidence to the contrary. Primus: "Joe Boob" is indeed a compemptuous
characteristic. It is a sarcastic comment on how Krugman thinks of
his lessers. Secundus: I get Krugman's point - I was arguing against
it. Try again.
Mitchell Coffey
What do you feel about Bernanke’s speech?
Mitchell
Jeffrey Turner
Yeah, yeah yeah. And Creationists have a model. And "common sense"
tells us that heavy things fall faster than light thing, Mr. Physics
Smartypants.
> That said, Joe Boob, isn't likely to invest a whole lot of time and
> thought into the questions at hand. Krugman presumably has. The odds
> are long that he has the right of it (except in politics, of course,
> he's never in the right.) That isn't the point though.
>
> The point is that Krugman and many intellectuals occupy a stance of
> dismissive comtemptuous condescending arrogance. Always a good thing,
> of course, if you can pull it off. If a man can't sneer
> magnificantly, what good is he. Still, while it is very satisfying
> and entertaining to the onlookers, it is a form of mental
> masturbation. Mr. Wisdom pats his back as he sits in a pubble of
> self-admiration whilst Joe Boob mutters to himself, "What an asshole."
Falling back on the pseudo-post-Modernism where ignorant "models" are
just as good as book-larnin', are we? If you didn't pay attention to
the numbers and "felt" that Reagan and Laffer got it right because you
remember the economy being so good during the Eighties that doesn't mean
your "model" is accurate. You can learn economics from Krugman even if
you don't like his politics or his "tone of voice."
Or you can sing Pink Floyd's last big hit.
--Jeff
Richard Harter
You're cute when you jump to conclusions. I see you're working on the
high jump.
The interesting thing about our Jeffrey is that he has a rigid model.
If something doesn't match the model then it must be right wing
creationism. I suspect that stuff that sort of accords with the model
gets smoothed into an exact match when the print gets past his
eyeballs. Perhaps I'm wrong. We shall see.
Richard Harter
Look ma, my hat is all out of rabbits?
My view is that the macro economic models of the last seventy years
are broken, if for no other reason than the standard nostrums aren't
working. The Fed has kept doing the same things over and over with
the ineffectual results. (One is reminded of the definition of
insanity.) Knowing why or how they are broken is quite another
matter. If you want me to speculate as to what is going on, I might
be game, but not just at the moment. As to what my speculations might
be worth, probably three kopecks, about the same as Bernanke's views.
Jeffrey Turner
What makes you think the government has come close to implementing the
macroeconomic models of the last 70 years? The limitations of
monetarism, the only real policy the Fed can implement, are clear. If
you want to see what should be done, study Argentina circa 2002. It was
good, old-fashioned, drive the wingnuts bonkers Keynesianism, and it
worked. They ignored the IMF and the World Bank. It's only /in
extremis/ that the bankers at the Fed look out for anyone but bankers.
--Jeff
Richard Harter
<jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>On 8/27/2011 1:40 AM, Richard Harter wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 19:03:18 -0400, Mitchell Coffey
>> <mitchell...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/26/2011 2:59 PM, Richard Harter wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> What do you feel about Bernanke’s speech?
>>
>> Look ma, my hat is all out of rabbits?
>>
>> My view is that the macro economic models of the last seventy years
>> are broken, if for no other reason than the standard nostrums aren't
>> working. The Fed has kept doing the same things over and over with
>> the ineffectual results. (One is reminded of the definition of
>> insanity.) Knowing why or how they are broken is quite another
>> matter. If you want me to speculate as to what is going on, I might
>> be game, but not just at the moment. As to what my speculations might
>> be worth, probably three kopecks, about the same as Bernanke's views.
>
>What makes you think the government has come close to implementing the
>macroeconomic models of the last 70 years?
MOdels aren't the sort of thing you implement. You might use them as
a basis for action or as an explanation or as end papers for
pornographic novels, but you don't implement them. Of course you can
code simulations based on models and run those. That can be fun.
>
Robert Grumbine
Where, then, do you derive your confidence that any response to climate
change will be hideously expensive? That requires some sort of a model;
and those from economists give conclusions between very cheap and
hideously expensive.
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Anthony022071
> On Aug 24, 11:50 pm, Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net>
> wrote:
> It cannot survive in> popular opinion on its own merits,but the doctrine of creation and
> > divine providence can.
>
> one considers wishful thinking a merit, then it will survive on
> merit.
Belief in creation survives upon its reasonableness. People rightly
reason that only an all-powerful God could make the universe come
into existence.
> Few of us want to die a permanent death. The idea of oblivion is
> scary and painful. However, the physical world really does not provide
> any option. People will do almost anything to ensure a reasonably
> happy after life that lasts forever.
The psychological motivation for believing in God does not discredit
the reasonableness of believing in God.
> People would also like to have an end to history. They would like
> all conflicts resolved, forever. They would like to think that they
> would not need to ever make a moral decision again. Therefore, the end
> of days is also a popular concept.
Not many people want an end of history. The desire for perpetual
peace
does not make people long for an end to history. People who want
perpetual
peace want to be alive to enjoy it.
> Wishful thinking is an entranced interest. People want these things
> far more than they want money, power or sex. The professionals who
> study science would also love these an eternal life and an end to
> decision. However, what leads them away is logic, evidence, and so
> forth. However, I agree that in the long run wishful thinking always
> wins out with the majority.
Does the naturalistic view of nature and blind trust in scientific
explanations
count as wishful thinking?
It certainly is not based on logic and evidence.
> Therefore, I propose that we leave wishful thinking to those
> that need it. It hardly needs any help from scientists. However, I
> think that wishful thinking is strong enough that it will survive a
> solid scientific foundation.
I thought science could not say anything about God.
> Scientists can still solve some of the problems of humanity as
> well as make new ones as long as wishful thinking is kept out of
> scientific investigation.
Well,then there goes quantum mechanics,quarks,string theory,Higgs
field,the hypothetical mechanisms of abiogenesis theory,Gaia theory.
> Cognitive dissonance can make wishful
> thinking and rational investigation live side by side.
> Just don't claim that wishful thinking is the same as rationality.
> Even when wishful thinking takes over, it is never rational.
What is your definition for rationality? Do you equate it with it
methodological naturalism?
> There is no logic to the YEC position. There is only wishful
> thinking.
The Catholic doctrine of creation is entirely logical.
> There is only wishful thinking.
What does the belief that God created the natural world have to do
with wishful thinking?
Have you thought it through,or do you just buy into whatever
naturalistic science says?
> Their position is basically a total rejection of rational
> investigation.
Rational investigation is not the same as naturalistic science.
The naturalistic view of nature is not justifiable to begin with.
Kleuskes & Moos
> On Aug 25, 2:14 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 24, 11:50 pm, Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>> It cannot survive in> popular opinion on its own merits,but the
>> doctrine of creation and
>> > divine providence can.
>>
> - Show quoted text -
>
> Socialist as in the ideology that proposes government control over
> private property,beliefs and behavior.
Socialists don't propose government control over the first two, least of
all beliefs. The latter, that is control over behavior, yes, in any state
that is extensively codified in law, expounded upon in jurisprudence and
usually enforced more or less rigorously.
A socialist _would_ say that the means of production should be in public
hands, against which good arguments exist, but the above is a ludicrous
strawman. If you want to discuss the pro's and con's of Socialism, you'll
have to do better than that.
<snip rest of Archie Bunker impersonation>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________
/ Give them RADAR-GUIDED SKEE-BALL LANES \
\ and VELVEETA BURRITOS!! /
----------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Maycock
"Anthony022071" <anthon...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:837439af-8f43-4d39...@g9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 25, 2:14 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 24, 11:50 pm, Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net>
>> wrote:
>> It cannot survive in popular opinion on its own merits,but the doctrine
>> of creation and
>> > divine providence can.
>
>> one considers wishful thinking a merit, then it will survive on
>> merit.
>
> Belief in creation survives upon its reasonableness. People rightly
> reason that only an
> all-powerful God could make the universe come into existence.
It's unreasonable to invoke an all-powerful God, since we don't have any
independent evidence
for such an entity. There's no reason to think an all-powerful God would
spend his time
hiding from observation, mimicking the properties of things that don't
exist.
>> Few of us want to die a permanent death. The idea of oblivion is
>> scary and painful. However, the physical world really does not provide
>> any option. People will do almost anything to ensure a reasonably
>> happy after life that lasts forever.
>
> The psychological motivation for believing in God does not take away
> from the reasonableness
> of believing in God.
It provides an explanation for why people believe in God, given that there's
no evidence
for God.
snip
> The Catholic doctrine of creation is entirely logical.
What makes it logical?
>> There is only wishful thinking.
>
> What does the belief that God created the natural world have to do
> with wishful thinking?
People wish that God exists, and so they claim God created the natural
world.
> Have you thought it through,or do you just buy into whatever
> naturalistic science says?
Naturalistic science is the only kind of science that's reasonable; e.g., we
don't
have theistic chemistry or theistic physics.
>> Their position is basically a total rejection of rational
>> investigation.
>
> Rational investigation is not the same as naturalistic science.
> The naturalistic view of nature is not justifiable to begin with.
Naturalistic science is justifiable because there's no evidence for
non-natural
processes in our universe.
walksalone
news:1a578e33-46c6-4473...@t3g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
>> On Aug 25, 2:14 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 24, 11:50 pm, Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net>
>> wrote:
>
>> It cannot survive in popular opinion on its own merits,but the
>> doctrine of creation and divine providence can.
>
>> Religious belief will survive on wishful thinking, not logic. If
>> one considers wishful thinking a merit, then it will survive on
>> merit.
>
> Belief in creation survives upon its reasonableness. People rightly
> reason that only an all-powerful God could make the universe come
> into existence.
Actually, I suspect you are eluding yourself. Many theistic types do, &
I suspect can't help themselves. They have lied to themselves, along
with others, for so long, they have no choice but to believe as they do.
When I meet them in real life, I tend to pity them. A wholw universe is
waiting, & they can't force themselves past the front door.
Is it pretty, not always. After all, nature may not do good & evil, but
it does have consequences.
>> Few of us want to die a permanent death. The idea of oblivion is
Really, that is rather self centered & greedy of those people you are
referring to.
>> scary and painful. However, the physical world really does not
>> provide any option. People will do almost anything to ensure a
>> reasonably happy after life that lasts forever.
>
> The psychological motivation for believing in God does not take away
> from the reasonableness of believing in God.
It certainly does, after all, should gods exist, the question becomes
why. Being the, in this case, revealed gods of the desert were all
founded in desperate times, the post Sea People invasion, the Roman
Empire in Judea who had a failed god, & the Islamic which occured during
the collapse of Arabic [in general] custom & way of life. No reason for
a god to show up, but which one if any is real is your claim to defend &
provide evidence for. The second criteria being the one of interest.
>> People would also like to have an end to history. They would like
>> all conflicts resolved, forever. They would like to think that they
>> would not need to ever make a moral decision again. Therefore, the
>> end of days is also a popular concept.
> Not many people want an end of history. Not many people really care
> if
> universal peace comes about. That would make life boring anyway,unless
> we were filled with love of God and neighbor. Many people thrive on
> conflict.
Usually theists. I forone have had enough conflict, from bleaters to
rude to keep it to themselves, to an all expense paid vacation to SE Asia
from 1964-68.
I am quite willing to let you go to your hell in your own way. Providing
you keep it out of politics & the educational systems of the world. [1]
[1] Theism should never be introduced as a valid concept, & never before
the 8th year. & then, as literature.
> - Show quoted text -
>
> The Catholic doctrine of creation is entirely logical.
Then the evidence would support it. The evidence laughs at it instead.
>> There is only wishful thinking.
> What does the belief that God created the natural world have to do
> with wishful thinking?
Quite a bit really, but this is usenet.
> Have you thought it through,or do you just buy into whatever
> naturalistic science says?
Several times, after all, I did have the joy of sireing some wonderful
people. However, I have a natural distaste for being lied to. & that is
all theism can offer.
Buts & maybes don't qualify as evidence, nor should they.
>> Their position is basically a total rejection of rational
>> investigation.
> Rational investigation is not the same as naturalistic science.
> The naturalistic view of nature is not justifiable to begin with.
Says you, but I don't believe you. But then again, I can read & I can
think for myself. Make mistakes, daily. Correctable mistakes.
Then to there is the problem of the missing messiah who was not in any
way a Jewish messiah. Historically missing, & had he been around, a
failed messiah. But you won't hear about that in discussion groups where
the objective is mutual mental masturbation.
walkslaone who has often considered the sad fact, the majority of things
peddled by others may be temporarily satisfying. But PT Barnum was right
as the existence of active theism around the world demonstrates.
From the net.
Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by
other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of
yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people
evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical
claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a
Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed
to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah
slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the
elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women,
children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about
gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the
Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got
killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in
the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you
find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen
sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the
exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in
all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering.
And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have
failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor
speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove"
Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered
prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you
think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do
about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call
yourself a Christian.
walksalone
news:73d63f3d-2cc6-4a49...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> On Aug 25, 2:14 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 24, 11:50 pm, Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net>
>> wrote:
>> It cannot survive in> popular opinion on its own merits,but the
>> doctrine of creation and
>> > divine providence can.
>>
>> Religious belief will survive on wishful thinking, not logic. If
>> one considers wishful thinking a merit, then it will survive on
>> merit.
>
> Belief in creation survives upon its reasonableness. People rightly
> reason that only an all-powerful God could make the universe come
> into existence.
They don'ty reason, but accept the emotional appeal. Now, which creator
do you beleive in/ A god, goddess, or human? If a god, you must believe
in Bumba, for his version explains the world of today. If not, why not &
who would you be foolish enough to defend in his place. BTW, for me &
some others, a god/dess/super spook follows along the following lines.
If any of the regulars can add to it, I would appreciate. If they desire
attributaion, no problem.
What is a god, a short & incomplete list.
Requirements or attributes of the gods, goddesses & other
divinities of the human species. [Incomplete]
Anthropomorphic
A: Must be supernatural [applies to every divinity declared]
B: May or may not be able to have a visible body [Zeus & the
Greek
pantheon as an example]
C: May or may not interfere in human activity or destiny.
D: May or may not be good, evil, or apathetic where humans are
concerned.
E: May or may not be a divine through their own will, may be a
victim
of apotheosis [the Chinese pantheon is a good example of these
types of gods.]
Demons: Now there is a thought, Demons as gods. Indeed, they are,
lessor gods to be sure, but more powerful than some gods, less
powerful than others.
Dwarves &/or Elves: Though two distinct races, dwarves are found in
worldwide mythology as well as European. Elves, tend to be Nordic &
Germanic in origin.
Fates: They are common to the classical myths as well as the
European ones.
Fairies, or the wee folk: A class of gods that include everything
from Brownies to Knockers & beyond. Some are good, & some like Red
Hat, are not.
Giants: though supernatural as understood in the myths of the
world, they are not necessary known to have god like powers as most
understand the term.
Gods & goddesses: I hope this class does not need more explanation.
Spirits: are all supernatural, even those that are the spirits of
humans or animals that have not went on to where good spirits are
entitled to go.
Animistic, all living creatures, including plant life
Astral/solar All heavenly bodies
Now as to creator gods, why yes the ancients claimed many. But they did
not know better & lacked the information availible today.
>> Few of us want to die a permanent death. The idea of oblivion is
>> scary and painful. However, the physical world really does not
>> provide any option. People will do almost anything to ensure a
>> reasonably happy after life that lasts forever.
>
> The psychological motivation for believing in God does not discredit
> the reasonableness of believing in God.
But it does, after all, without fear, there is no carrot, nor stick as in
the xian version of Big Daddy AKA God™, ver .00001, build 9999999.
>> People would also like to have an end to history. They would like
>> all conflicts resolved, forever. They would like to think that they
>> would not need to ever make a moral decision again. Therefore, the
>> end of days is also a popular concept.
> Not many people want an end of history. The desire for perpetual
> peace
An end to history would be an end to humanity.
> does not make people long for an end to history. People who want
> perpetual
> peace want to be alive to enjoy it.
>
>> Wishful thinking is an entranced interest. People want these
>> things far more than they want money, power or sex. The professionals
>> who study science would also love these an eternal life and an end to
>> decision. However, what leads them away is logic, evidence, and so
>> forth. However, I agree that in the long run wishful thinking always
>> wins out with the majority.
>
> Does the naturalistic view of nature and blind trust in scientific
> explanations
> count as wishful thinking?
Blind trust? Science does not require a theistic approach, but open
availble sources of inforation that all can access, & if they are of a
mind, rebut or reject. An offer not accepted by the bleater brigade.
Their fears show in their reactioons to science, with exceptions of
course.
> It certainly is not based on logic and evidence.
Logic, what does logic have to do with it. Logic is not required to be
true, just logical. & evidence, science has provided more evidence for
its presentations that xianity in particular ever has or will. Just wait
& you will see does not evidence make.
BTW, what happens to the xian pretensions if the EOTW [end of the world]
does not happen at Meggido/ Say theinstead, another There, Siberian
apocolypse, severe meteor strike, or a cauldra going active with a severe
case of the chapped ass?
Let me guess, you will pretend your god changed its mind to fit the
circumstances.
>> Therefore, I propose that we leave wishful thinking to those
>> that need it. It hardly needs any help from scientists. However, I
>> think that wishful thinking is strong enough that it will survive a
>> solid scientific foundation.
> I thought science could not say anything about God.
It can, on an individual basis. what it cannot do, & rightly so, is
examine your gods. & yes, xianity has millions of them, they just don't
admit it.
>> Scientists can still solve some of the problems of humanity as
>> well as make new ones as long as wishful thinking is kept out of
>> scientific investigation.
> Well,then there goes quantum mechanics,quarks,string theory,Higgs
> field,the hypothetical mechanisms of abiogenesis theory,Gaia theory.
Actually no. Wishfukl thinking is not defined by you or xianity.
Admittaly, it tries but always leaves itself out. Curiousity is what
drives science, not certainity.
>> Cognitive dissonance can make wishful
>> thinking and rational investigation live side by side.
>> Just don't claim that wishful thinking is the same as
>> rationality. Even when wishful thinking takes over, it is never
>> rational.
> What is your definition for rationality? Do you equate it with it
> methodological naturalism?
Accepting what is left in spite of my wishews. Can you do that? It
appears not.
>> There is no logic to the YEC position. There is only wishful
>> thinking.
> The Catholic doctrine of creation is entirely logical.
For a low enough grade of logical that most that do not accept the
proverbial, rainbow stew & free bubble up scenario, it is anything but.
>> There is only wishful thinking.
>
> What does the belief that God created the natural world have to do
> with wishful thinking?
Quite a bit, but we are repeating ourselves.
snip, this is a waste of time, but then according to xians, so is living
without fear.
walksalone who saw a lot of repetion in the above, but I am not awake
yet. Ambulatory does not always equate to awake let alone mentally
active.
Fine clothes may disguise, but
silly words will disclose a fool.