|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2009 : 18:46:48 [Permalink]
|
I suppose that as in all areas of science, when one wants to draw an inductive conclusion about something, one has to draw a more or less arbitrary line for when to reject/accept something. The infamous p-values in scientific papers is usually set at 0.05 (at least for the biological sciences. Physics, from memory, uses 0.001). Perhaps a Ham-value should be used to measure the probability that a particular person's statement is wrong. This value would simply be the proportion of wrong statements relative to the total number of statements (wrong/total). Perhaps we should automatically reject people's statements when their Ham-values for a particular field of enquiry have previously been larger than 0.2 (Ham > 0.2). Or 0.5. Or 0.05. Or 0.001. Or perhaps we should always evaluate claims no matter who puts them forth. But, then, who can be asked fisking everything Ken Ham has to say.
...
As you were (the military meaning of the phrase) |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
| Edited by - Hawks on 08/08/2009 18:48:12 |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 08/08/2009 : 19:13:10 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| 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. |
Well, yeah, thats what I've been saying for several posts now. I don't think I ever said Hammy would automatically be wrong about anything he said, did I? Pretty sure I was being specific to Ham vs Evolution with the hypothetical example I gave.
If I did say that, or give that impression, my bad. Wasn't what I was trying to say at all.
|
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 : 20:00:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Well, yeah, thats what I've been saying for several posts now. I don't think I ever said Hammy would automatically be wrong about anything he said, did I? Pretty sure I was being specific to Ham vs Evolution with the hypothetical example I gave.
If I did say that, or give that impression, my bad. Wasn't what I was trying to say at all. |
I guess my problem has been that Ham is wrong about so many different fields, that any discussion of him being wrong winds up sounding like he's wrong about everything. He might be, I just don't know it (yet). Sorry. |
- 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 - 08/10/2009 : 12:24:22 [Permalink]
|
A very late reply, this was from page 2.
Originally posted by Dave W.
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. |
It happens, maybe not often, perhaps even rarely. But it happens.
| 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%? |
This would be a very noticeable phenomenon. It would require 6.03334 * 10^24 kilograms to change g by 1%. With this source saying the earth gains 10^8kg of mass per day, that comes out to 1.653 * 10^14 years.
Let's face it, if there were a known phenomenon that could change g (without our knowing otherwise), scientists would check it before they did experiments. |
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 08/10/2009 12:28:31 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2009 : 14:14:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
This would be a very noticeable phenomenon. It would require 6.03334 * 10^24 kilograms to change g by 1%. With this source saying the earth gains 10^8kg of mass per day, that comes out to 1.653 * 10^14 years. |
Is that all! We've got to get to work on this looming global disaster now!!| Let's face it, if there were a known phenomenon that could change g (without our knowing otherwise), scientists would check it before they did experiments. |
Sure. As I said, it was a quickly-thought-up example, and it would still work if we assumed that I had no knowledge of how gravity works. |
- 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 - 08/10/2009 : 14:23:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
This would be a very noticeable phenomenon. It would require 6.03334 * 10^24 kilograms to change g by 1%. |
Hey, waitaminute! my source tells me that the Earth is 5.9736×1024 kg, so doubling the mass of Earth is going to double g, not increase it by 1% (all other variables ignored). g varies directly with m, so to increase g by 1% should require only 5.9736×1022 kg, and then dividing by 108 kg/day gives us 5.9736×1014 days, or 1.636×1012 years.
OH NoeS!!!!1!!!! That's more than 100 times faster than what you said!!!! |
- 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 - 08/10/2009 : 14:26:26 [Permalink]
|
Oh, and the Moon is 1.2% the mass of Earth, so crashing it into us is a known method whereby g can change by 1%, easy.  |
- 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 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2009 : 16:41:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Whoops, I seem to have forgot to include in my calculation the fact that the Earth already has 5.9736*10^24 kg of mass. My numbers line up with yours now, 1.6366*10^12 years.
| As I said, it was a quickly-thought-up example, and it would still work if we assumed that I had no knowledge of how gravity works. |
No, it would still be incompatible. If we did have total ignorance of how gravity worked, I'd imagine we'd still be measuring it just to make sure it didn't change. Likewise, we need to check people arguments before dismissing them out of hand just because of who said them.
And dismissing someone is much different then just not listening to them.
|
So, you are telling me that you will check Phelp's arguments every time he says some new anti-gay thing? That you will check Ham's arguments every time he says there is a problem with evolution?
What you are saying is the equivilent of demanding that you re-check gravity to see if it is still the same before you perform any experiment that relies on gravity as a constant.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2009 : 16:52:25 [Permalink]
|
You are going to go through life wasting a lot of time.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2009 : 16:54:35 [Permalink]
|
You are doing graduate level work now, yes? Every time a professor or one of your mentor's gives you a bit of knowledge, do you go and independently verify it before you trust it?
|
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 - 08/10/2009 : 17:27:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
No, it would still be incompatible. If we did have total ignorance of how gravity worked, I'd imagine we'd still be measuring it just to make sure it didn't change. |
Perhaps, but would everyone who needed to make a calculation using g re-measure it if, after millions of measurements, it hasn't changed? Sure, if someone's life depended on it, but to do a backyard physics trick which depended upon timing the fall of an object to within half-a-percent, then no. If the trick failed, then we might re-measure it. Or we might just turn on CNN to see the "Holy crap, the force of gravity changed this morning at 9:42!" headlines.
Since none of Ham's claims (for example) threaten anyone's life, what's the downside of ignoring him on past experience?| Likewise, we need to check people arguments before dismissing them out of hand just because of who said them. |
If my neighbor lies to me 99 times out of 100, and one morning tells me that my car has been stolen, I'm not going to pay attention to him. Per his history, there's a 99% shot that my car is right where I left it around the corner.| And dismissing someone is much different then just not listening to them. |
Was "the boy who cried 'wolf!'" dismissed or just not listened to? I really don't know the difference. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2009 : 05:07:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
You are doing graduate level work now, yes? Every time a professor or one of your mentor's gives you a bit of knowledge, do you go and independently verify it before you trust it?
|
Taking your professor's word for a fact in his field of expertise is an admissible and a logically correct appeal to authority.
Taking Ham's word for a fact in a field of (NOT) his expertise is (NOT) a correct appeal to authority.
Taking (NOT) Ham's word for a fact in a field of (NOT) his expertise is not even an appeal to authority to begin with.
Only when Ham is claiming some kind of expertise as support for his assertions may we invoke false appeal to authority. But then, Ham does that when he claims biblical authority.
If we say that "Ham is wrong (about evolution) because he is a creationist" it is an ad hominem as long as we cannot prove that "creationist" is the opposite and mutually exclusive to evolution.
Since people like Miller proves that being creationist and holding evidence-based views on evolution is not mutually exclusive (only extremely rare), we cannot excuse ad hominems as valid appeals to an inverse function of argument of authority.
Only if Ham claims Authority-from-the-literal-Bible-interpretation, which is the inverse or opposite of fact-based-evolution, can we dismiss what he says without committing the ad hominem.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2009 : 07:34:56 [Permalink]
|
| Well I am fairly certain your numbers are faulty on the whole +1% g thing, the daily mass increase numbers do not take into account the occasional very large impacts, we know a Mars sized(10%g) object hit Earth a paltry 4.5ish x10^9 years ago. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Ad hominems, again
