|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 08/08/2009 : 01:15:01 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
And it's all because the converse (authority) argument suggests that if Francis Collins has been correct about claims that the human genome is A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, etc., then he's inductively correct when he says the human genome is evidence of God's handiwork. I'm sure you'll agree that he's got a fairly high degree of expertise in both human genetics and theology (at least as much as the next man), but I'm equally sure that you'll reject the induction.
|
If Dr Collins' previous arguments and conclusions about the human genome were widely accepted by his peers and contained theistic references backed by evidence then yes, you could make an inductive argument that his claim of the genome being god's handiwork is probably correct. Since those conditions are not satisfied, you can't make a strong inductive argument in favor of the final claim.
Let me also point out that the "appeal to authority" fallacy is only a fallacy if you appeal to a false authority.
But you know that.
What my argument boils down to is that people, skeptics included, commit Rat-type-3 ad hominem arguments all the time, but they only remain so if we don't actually do the checking that would be required if the propositions came from any other source: a person who has not lied to us a zillion times.
|
On a pure technicality ad hom is a fallacy of formal deductive logic. When making an inductive argument you can't actually commit this fallacy. Ken Ham is probably wrong when he says X about evolution because he has been wrong about A through W. Not an ad hom. There is no attack on the character or belief of the arguer, just a listing of true premises that lead to your tentative conclusion.
And what I'm saying is that if you leave it at that, and don't bother checking claim X simply because it's Ken Ham and you're sure of your induction, then you've still proposed an ad hominem argument within the context of what "an ad hominem argument" means. That particular fallacy (and the argument from authority) both reject induction.
|
My head hurts now.... I grok what you are saying. I see how a strong inductive argument about credibility can be mistaken for an ad hom or flase authority fallacy. This can be resolved by evaluating the premises (Ken Ham was wrong when he said A,B,C, etc about evolution) for factual accuracy and making sure the conclusion actually follows from the premises(this is where your Collins example fails).
More later, after sleep.... If the above is not making much sense, its probably because I'm posting crap at 415am...
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2009 : 08:41:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
If Dr Collins' previous arguments and conclusions about the human genome were widely accepted by his peers and contained theistic references backed by evidence then yes, you could make an inductive argument that his claim of the genome being god's handiwork is probably correct. Since those conditions are not satisfied, you can't make a strong inductive argument in favor of the final claim. |
Let me try this a different way: let's say that Collins had made a million statements about genetics (backed with appropriate evidence) which were all accepted by his scientific peers, and another million statements about God (backed with appropriate evidence) which were all accepted by his theological peers. Then, for his 2,000,001st statement, he says that the human genome is evidence of God (or some such mixture of the two fields). Since if he had evidence for such a statement, we wouldn't need to make an induction about it, so based on nothing more than his previous two million correct statements, can we make a strong induction that his latest is correct?Let me also point out that the "appeal to authority" fallacy is only a fallacy if you appeal to a false authority.
But you know that. |
I know that, but I also know that since experts working within their own field of expertise are sometimes wrong, so relying upon "Ken Miller made a claim about biology, so I believe it" is not a logically defensible position. In other words, Miller is reliable, but he's not infallible. This sort of thing was an embarrassment on the Straight Dope (Cecil Adams' newspaper column) Message Board years ago, where "Cecil said it, I believe it, that's the end of it" was a common, and dumb, refrain.| My head hurts now.... I grok what you are saying. I see how a strong inductive argument about credibility can be mistaken for an ad hom or flase authority fallacy. |
There is the key I've been missing, in the word "mistaken!" I think we're grokking one another, now.
However, as I'm sure you'll agree, there remains the problem of determining how much data is necessary before we can call an induction "strong." I mean, the force of gravity on Earth has been measured a gazillion times to at least two sigfigs, so if I'm doing some calculation, I can be highly confident that if I write down "9.8" I'll be correct without needing to re-measure the force myself. In fact, if I were to insist on re-measuring the force, it'd be seen as rather intensely anal, especially since we've got maps of gravity over the whole Earth which go to far more than two sigfigs.
But how large a sample do we need of someone's claims about a particular subject before we can be confident that we don't need to check? Before our induction is "strong?" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2009 : 10:33:15 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| Let me try this a different way: let's say that Collins had made a million statements about genetics (backed with appropriate evidence) which were all accepted by his scientific peers, and another million statements about God (backed with appropriate evidence) which were all accepted by his theological peers. Then, for his 2,000,001st statement, he says that the human genome is evidence of God (or some such mixture of the two fields). Since if he had evidence for such a statement, we wouldn't need to make an induction about it, so based on nothing more than his previous two million correct statements, can we make a strong induction that his latest is correct? |
No. Because the subjects are different. Doing so is another logical fallacy.
However, as I'm sure you'll agree, there remains the problem of determining how much data is necessary before we can call an induction "strong." I mean, the force of gravity on Earth has been measured a gazillion times to at least two sigfigs, so if I'm doing some calculation, I can be highly confident that if I write down "9.8" I'll be correct without needing to re-measure the force myself. In fact, if I were to insist on re-measuring the force, it'd be seen as rather intensely anal, especially since we've got maps of gravity over the whole Earth which go to far more than two sigfigs.
But how large a sample do we need of someone's claims about a particular subject before we can be confident that we don't need to check? Before our induction is "strong?" |
With induction that is based on collected data points you can use Bayesian and/or Kyburgian statistical models to determine the reliability of your conclusions.
When you are looking at something like a person's credibility there is clearly a great deal of subjective interpretation required. In extreme cases, like Ken Ham , where their track record is quite extensive and probably close to 100% wrong, I don't feel obligated to examine every single thing they say(about evolution/science in Ham's case) in close detail before assigning it a truth value of probably false.
What is the specific sample size needed? I don't know.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2009 : 10:41:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
No. Because the subjects are different. Doing so is another logical fallacy. |
He (still hypothetically speaking, of course) has been correct about both subjects 100% of the time, with a large sample size, but an induction cannot be made because he's now blending the two fields? He's been spot-on with his genetics, and spot-on with his theology, but when it comes to theological genetics, we've got to start all over?
Edited to say that we're not talking about someone like Linus Pauling, whose fans have decided that since he was an expert in molecular chemistry, he's also correct about medicine. The Collins example doesn't have him talking outside his fields of expertise. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2009 : 12:20:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
However, as I'm sure you'll agree, there remains the problem of determining how much data is necessary before we can call an induction "strong." I mean, the force of gravity on Earth has been measured a gazillion times to at least two sigfigs, so if I'm doing some calculation, I can be highly confident that if I write down "9.8" I'll be correct without needing to re-measure the force myself. In fact, if I were to insist on re-measuring the force, it'd be seen as rather intensely anal, especially since we've got maps of gravity over the whole Earth which go to far more than two sigfigs.
But how large a sample do we need of someone's claims about a particular subject before we can be confident that we don't need to check? Before our induction is "strong?" |
You're conflating two very different things here: physical constants and people. In this case, there is no known phenomena that can change the gravitational constant, and there is also no known phenomena which can remove a significant amount of mass from the earth. On the other hand, we have very well documented cases of credible people loosing their credibility. It is here that the argument "n implies n+1" fails.
Edit: I would also imagine that there are examples of the converse in science, where an amateur or person of little credibility makes a great discovery. I can't think of any off hand in science, but there are examples in mathematics such as Galois. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 08/08/2009 12:23:59 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2009 : 13:48:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Edit: I would also imagine that there are examples of the converse in science, where an amateur or person of little credibility makes a great discovery. I can't think of any off hand in science, but there are examples in mathematics such as Galois. |
Charles Darwin comes to mind. By any modern standard, his education left him an utter amateur in biology. It was essentially his self-education on the voyage of the Beagle that made Darwin a professional.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2009 : 14:11:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
You're conflating two very different things here: physical constants and people. In this case, there is no known phenomena that can change the gravitational constant, and there is also no known phenomena which can remove a significant amount of mass from the earth. On the other hand, we have very well documented cases of credible people loosing their credibility. It is here that the argument "n implies n+1" fails. |
I understand what you're saying, Ricky, but it was just a quickly thought-up example. But how often do creationists change their stripes? I know of only a single example of a "professional" creationist turning evolutionist, so it could be said to be so rare as to constitute a miracle.
Edited to add that a big asteroid crashing into the Earth could add a significant amount of mass. Actually, how many years do we need to wait before infalling dust and small asteroids add enough mass to the Earth to change g by 1%?| Edit: I would also imagine that there are examples of the converse in science, where an amateur or person of little credibility makes a great discovery. I can't think of any off hand in science, but there are examples in mathematics such as Galois. |
How about "14-Year-Old Discovers Rare Supernova in Nearby Galaxy?" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2009 : 14:19:33 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| He (still hypothetically speaking, of course) has been correct about both subjects 100% of the time, with a large sample size, but an induction cannot be made because he's now blending the two fields? He's been spot-on with his genetics, and spot-on with his theology, but when it comes to theological genetics, we've got to start all over? |
In any argument your cnclusion must follow from the pemesis. If the premesis of your induction could demonstrate a relationship between theology and genetics, then you could make your argument. If you can't demonstrate a relationship between the subjects then your conclusion does not follow.
If I were an expert in biology and in computer science and in theology, with established credibility in all three fields, and I claimed that DNA was a computer program written by Jesus, you'd be making an inductive error to trust my final claim.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2009 : 14:26:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Dude
No. Because the subjects are different. Doing so is another logical fallacy. |
He (still hypothetically speaking, of course) has been correct about both subjects 100% of the time, with a large sample size, but an induction cannot be made because he's now blending the two fields? He's been spot-on with his genetics, and spot-on with his theology, but when it comes to theological genetics, we've got to start all over?
Edited to say that we're not talking about someone like Linus Pauling, whose fans have decided that since he was an expert in molecular chemistry, he's also correct about medicine. The Collins example doesn't have him talking outside his fields of expertise.
|
Can theology even qualify as a "field of expertise"? Of course you can be an expert in what other people say about gods, religious history, etc., but how can anyone be an expert on the factual reality of gods? I would think that to be an expert on something, that at a minimum there needs to be a something there. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2009 : 14:42:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
In any argument your cnclusion must follow from the pemesis. If the premesis of your induction could demonstrate a relationship between theology and genetics, then you could make your argument. If you can't demonstrate a relationship between the subjects then your conclusion does not follow. |
Okay, maybe I don't grok you after all. Aren't you setting up a double standard? You're saying that just by being wrong about a subject over and over again, we can inductively conclude that Ken Ham's next proposition on evolution will be wrong, also.
But if a person is right about two subjects over and over again, you're saying that we cannot inductively conclude that their next proposition, which happens to be about both fields at the same time, will be correct.
You're saying we can trust an induction based on a history of being wrong, but that we cannot trust an induction based on a history of being right.
(The real reason that we can make a conclusion about Ham being wrong the next time he says something is that we know why he is chronically wrong: because he is committed to assumptions that contradict reality, and so long as he maintains those premises, he will continue to be wrong. We don't need to make an induction based solely upon his history of wrongness, we were just using him as an example.)| If I were an expert in biology and in computer science and in theology, with established credibility in all three fields, and I claimed that DNA was a computer program written by Jesus, you'd be making an inductive error to trust my final claim. |
Yes, I understand that. I said that. My problem is that you're saying we can trust an induction regarding being wrong. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2009 : 14:48:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Can theology even qualify as a "field of expertise"? Of course you can be an expert in what other people say about gods, religious history, etc., but how can anyone be an expert on the factual reality of gods? I would think that to be an expert on something, that at a minimum there needs to be a something there. |
Geez, guys, they're just examples! I don't know of anyone (by name) who could be considered an expert in genetics and art appraisal, or physics and cabinetry. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2009 : 15:09:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Can theology even qualify as a "field of expertise"? Of course you can be an expert in what other people say about gods, religious history, etc., but how can anyone be an expert on the factual reality of gods? I would think that to be an expert on something, that at a minimum there needs to be a something there. |
Geez, guys, they're just examples! I don't know of anyone (by name) who could be considered an expert in genetics and art appraisal, or physics and cabinetry.
|
Sorry to wander a little off topic, I just struck me that expertise in theology is like expertise in leprechaun hunting. It would be possible for someone to have expertise in, say, physics and cabinetry, because both have something there on which to build expertise. When it comes to theology, there's nothing there.
Carry on. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2009 : 16:05:56 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| You're saying we can trust an induction based on a history of being wrong, but that we cannot trust an induction based on a history of being right. |
No. I'm saying that you can make inductive argument for the probabilty or being wrong or right. I'm also saying that your induction must follow from your premesis.
More in a few, on my phone at the moment (iPhone ftw!), and getting interuppted by work. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 08/08/2009 19:13:40 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2009 : 16:28:42 [Permalink]
|
In other words, you could argue that Collins next claim about genetics will probably be right based on his credentials and history of credibility in this field. If he had similar credibility with religion you could argue that his next purely theological claim will probably be accurate. But any attempt to combine two disparate fields of expertise would require an equal track record of credibility with regard to claims made that combine the two.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2009 : 18:14:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
In other words, you could argue that Collins next claim about genetics will probably be right based on his credentials and history of credibility in this field. If he had similar credibility with religion you could argue that his next purely theological claim will probably be accurate. But any attempt to combine two disparate fields of expertise would require an equal track record of credibility with regard to claims made that combine the two. |
But the wrong-statement induction isn't based upon Ham's sticking to one particular subject (because he's wrong about a lot of stuff). To be consistent, we'll have to break that argument down, also, and say that we can make inductions about Ham and evolution, Ham and geology, Ham and physics (etc.), but if Ham ever makes an art appreciation claim, then we won't be able to dismiss it just because it's Ken Ham, because out induction hasn't yet reached that subject.
In other words, the induction isn't just about Ken Ham and wrongness, it's about Ken Ham's wrongness in particular fields of knowledge. And if we've never seen him be wrong in a particular field of knowledge before, we can't infer that he'll be wrong about it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Ad hominems, again
