[__ Science __ ] Study: Only 37% of American Pastors Have a Biblical Worldview

[Barbarian]

And those of you worried that I'm enabling him, keep in mind, he's making progress, a little at a time.

And I'm a very patient guy.

 

[Barbarian]

What's not a fact if you don't have evidence?

You're rushing and not reading the entire post, again.

It's not a fact if you don't have evidence. Doesn't seem like a difficult concept to me. But fact of a round Earth (for example) is not the same as having a view from space to see it. That doesn't seem like a difficult concept, either.

It seems to me that much of your difficulty is in rushing into things, failing to read everything, and then making up stuff to fill in the gaps. Slow down, think about things before you start writing. It will help.

 

[Runner]

I'm now writing for my own amusement (and, I guess, just in case anyone is being misled by some of the most uninformed and silly statements I've ever encountered on any internet forum - and that's saying a lot since I've been at this for more than 25 years).

The formulation "Knowledge = Justified True Belief (JTB)" has been the standard philosophical formulation since Plato and Socrates, who are not generally considered "pop" philosophers. In 1963, Edmund Gettier stood the philosophical world on its ear by showing that JTB isn't always sufficient for knowledge. Here is an example (not mine):

​

Imagine we are seeking water on a hot day. We suddenly see water, or so we think. In fact, we are not seeing water but a convincing mirage. When we reach the spot, however, we are lucky and find water right there under a rock. Can we say we had genuine knowledge of water? The answer is no, we were just lucky. We had a justified belief that just happened to correspond to the truth.​

​

Most philosophers now accept that JTB is necessary for knowledge but not sufficient for knowledge. What more is required is an area of philosophical debate. If you're really interested, see the entry on "The Analysis of Knowledge" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#GettProb.

Paul E. Michael insists it is silly to say there can be adequate justification for a false belief, or a insufficient justification for a true belief. The entry on "Epistemology" in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy strongly disagrees, in pretty much the same language I used:

Note that because of luck, a belief can be unjustified yet true; and because of human fallibility, a belief can be justified yet false. In other words, truth and justification are two independent conditions of beliefs. The fact that a belief is true does not tell us whether or not it is justified; that depends on how the belief was arrived at. So, two people might hold the same true belief, but for different reasons, so that one of them is justified and the other is unjustified. Similarly, the fact that a belief is justified does not tell us whether it’s true or false. Of course, a justified belief will presumably be more likely to be true than to be false, and justified beliefs will presumably be more likely or more probable to be true than unjustified beliefs.​

​

Epistemology | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

​

This is heavy stuff, and I'm neither a trained philosopher nor epistemologist. But I have spent a great deal of time and effort on these subjects, and I did spend 40 years in a field (law) to which they are relevant.

This from the National Academy of Sciences may also be useful in clarifying how terms like "fact" and "theory" are used in science:

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true”. Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.​

​

Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.​

​

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.​

​

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.​

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Facts just are. They are evidence.

It's not a fact if you don't have evidence.

IOW, according to you, "It's not [evidence] if you don't have evidence."

What's not evidence if you don't have evidence?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

We suddenly see water, or so we think. In fact, we are not seeing water but a convincing mirage.

So, you tend to admire "philosophers" who contradict, in one sentence, the very thing they had just got done affirming in the previous sentence?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

In 1963, Edmund Gettier stood the philosophical world on its ear by showing that JTB isn't always sufficient for knowledge.

In his little essay, Gettier wrote:

First, in that sense of "justified" in which S's being justified in believing P is a necessary condition of S's knowing that P, it is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is in fact false.

Nobody is ever justified in believing a proposition that is false. What an asinine thing for him to say.

He wrote:

Proposition (e) is then true, though proposition (d), from which Smith inferred (e), is false.

What a ridiculous thing to say. If Gettier ever was a philosopher some of the time, he lapsed out of being one at least long enough to write that silly piece.

No proposition that is true entails a proposition that is false. True propositions entail only true propositions. Thus, neither Smith, nor anybody else, has ever inferred a proposition that is false from a proposition that is true. Nobody infers from a proposition what said proposition does not entail.

If you don't like that elementary truth, then feel free to give an example of a proposition you would say is true, along with an example of a proposition you would say is false, and which you would say is entailed by the one you say is true.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

This from the National Academy of Sciences may also be useful in clarifying how terms like "fact" and "theory" are used in science:

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true”. Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

VS​

A fact is something observable.

Which is it, ye self-defeating, anti-coherence "science" people? Is a fact AN OBSERVATION, or is it SOMETHING OBSERVABLE?

 

[Barbarian]

Is a fact AN OBSERVATION, or is it SOMETHING OBSERVABLE?

Yes. Semantic games are failing you. Remember how long it took you to realize that birds are dinosaurs? It took you so long, because you kept hoping you could play word games in some way to change it. Never works.

 

[Barbarian]

What's not a fact if you don't have evidence?

Whatever it is. If there's no observable evidence, it's not a fact.

 

[Barbarian]

Nobody is ever justified in believing a proposition that is false.

Let's take a look at that...

At very high altitudes, lower atmospheric pressures mean that water boils at a lower temperture and cooking takes longer. Suppose we have some people living in pre-Columbian America, in mountains. They notice that cooking time will be longer at high altitudes. They think mischievous sprits make cooking take longer, and hypothesize that the time will increase with altitude, due to the concentration of such spirits increasing with altitude.. So they go out and test the hypothesis, and discover that cooking times do indeed increase with altitude, and are justified in thinking that their hypothesis is correct. Only later does additional evidence show that this is incorrect, even though their theory was a useful one that always worked.

Scientists, in the 17th century hypothesized a substance phlogiston, that existed within some things, and was released on combustion. It explained a large number of things about chemical reactions. Later, subsequent evidence showed that the theory was incorrect, even though it was useful in many ways. They were justified in accepting the phlogiston theory even though it turned out to be incorrect.

It is always possible that even logical thinking and evidence can still lead you to the wrong answers.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Whatever it is. If there's no observable evidence, it's not a fact.

Whatever what is? If there's no observable evidence, what's not a fact?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Let's take a look at that

Let me know if you ever intend to do so.

Nobody is ever justified in believing a proposition that is false.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Which is it, ye self-defeating, anti-coherence "science" people? Is a fact AN OBSERVATION, or is it SOMETHING OBSERVABLE?

Yes.

And your "Yes" is meant to be an answer to which of the two questions I asked?

1. Is a fact an observation? Yes or No?
2. Is a fact something observable? Yes or No?

Remember one of the many stupidities you've tried to hand me—your claim that a mechanical watch is a fact:

The mechanical watch on my desk is a fact. And yes, it can be seen by the eyes.

So, by telling us that a fact is an observation, you are telling us that "That the mechanical watch on my desk is [an observation]." Sorry, Barbarian, but a watch, or a desk, or a dog, or an ice cube—each one of these things may well be something observable; but, as you know, not even one of them is an observation. The thing observed/observable is not the observation of the thing observed/observable. Duh. Do you want to now play dumb regarding this elementary fact, pretending that you do not understand that X, the observed/observable thing is not the observation of X?

You say that your mechanical watch is an observable thing, and that it can be seen by your eyes; I've no qualm against that. Now, do you want to be so asinine as to also tell me that your observation of your mechanical watch can also be seen by your eyes? Your seeing, by your eyes, of your mechanical watch, is your observation; your mechanical watch, the thing you are seeing, by your eyes, is not your observation. Only a deranged fool could deny such an elementary fact as this.

 

[jerry63935]

suddenly we have some one writes a article .probably knows very little on preaching // while i can vouch for all pastors /the ones i know that includes me backs everything up with scripture just maybe they should start supporting the pastors who preach the truth. yet stand by the door waiting to greet those /who hit and miss more miss than hit . try preaching to 8 people or watch i people leave .to never return and stay home/ try praying for your pastor ask him is there anything i can do

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Only later does additional evidence show that this is incorrect, even though their theory was a useful one that always worked.

Later, subsequent evidence showed that the theory was incorrect, even though it was useful in many ways.

So, according to you some evidence supports the proposition, P, while other evidence supports P's contradictory, the proposition, ~P?

Also, notice that each of the only, two instances of the word, "evidence," in your post you have preceded by one of the adjectives, "additional" or "subsequent". So, what "evidence" was your "additional evidence" supposed to be in addition to? What "evidence" was your "subsequent evidence" supposed to be subsequent to? You never mentioned any "preceding evidence," or "earlier evidence," or "initial evidence." Why is that?

 

[Barbarian]

Nobody is ever justified in believing a proposition that is false.

You're completely wrong about that. If the evidence points to a particular conclusion, then one is justified in believing it. Being (as St. Augustine said, willing to change one's mind if new evidence should be found). This is why people are suggesting you learn a little about epistemology, knowing how we know things.

And the rest of it, you're starting to recycle old assumptions that have already been adequately handled by me or others. So I guess you're pretty much through, now.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

If the evidence points to a particular conclusion, then one is justified in believing it.

True. This is because evidence always, without exception, points to (entails) true propositions. That's what makes evidence evidence: it entails truth. Nobody is ever justified in believing a proposition that is false, because evidence never entails a proposition that is false. One is always justified in believing a proposition that is true, because evidence always entails a proposition that is true.

"Follow the evidence wherever it may lead" is the dumbest slogan anyone ever coined, if evidence may lead its follower to believe falsehood, as you claim it may. Your asinine doctrine of the nature of evidence is worse than useless. But your fondness for that doctrine explains why you believe asinine falsehoods such as that non-humans are ancestors of humans: your "evidence" leads you to believe it.

If you believe X, and X is entailed by evidence, it will never be rational for you to change your mind from believing X to believing something contrary/contradictory to X, since no further evidence will ever entail anything that is contrary/contradictory to X.

 

[Barbarian]

True. This is because evidence always, without exception, points to (entails) true propositions.

Assuming you actually believe in mischievous spirits. As you see, the hypothesis of those pre-Columbian people was repeatedly verified by experiments. Evidence can still give you wrong answers. One philosopher of science remareked that science goes from being wrong to being less wrong.

 

[Barbarian]

Your asinine doctrine of the nature of evidence is worse than useless.

As you already learned, that's wrong. The mischievous spirits theory worked every time. Your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Todd Wood writes:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution.

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Assuming you actually believe in mischievous spirits. As you see, the hypothesis of those pre-Columbian people was repeatedly verified by experiments. Evidence can still give you wrong answers. One philosopher of science remareked that science goes from being wrong to being less wrong.

Since, as has been consistently the case to date, you're not going to try to interact/deal with what I've written, why do you keep bothering to even post your pathetic "replies" to my posts?

I note, though, that your "philosopher," here, happens to speak the truth in his admission to us that the corpus of irrational thinking you like to call "science" is always wrong. Since you like to call yourself a "scientist," you are thereby admitting that you've dedicated your life to always being wrong. So, truly you are begging a colossal gratuity in your vain hope of being taken seriously by rationally-thinking people.

The mischievous spirits theory worked every time.

When you say that this or that false proposition "works," what (if anything) do you mean by that? It "works" to what effect?