stevestory
Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Davetard apparenly doesn't understand basic terminology differences between science and math.
| Quote | #44
As Stu Harris commented on a previous UD thread: “What’s wrong with an argument from personal incredulity anyway? If I find someone’s proposed explanation for something to be incredulous, what is necessarily wrong with that? It can’t always be due to my lack of imagination, it’s just as possible that it’s due to a bad explanation. It’s up to the one making the proposition to go beyond my rational incredulity, my skepticism, and convince me of their argument, and change my inference to the best explanation. In the case of the proponents of Darwinism, it’s up to them to show the truth of their explanation for evolution and not just make appeals to imagination.”
I added that one commentator made the following observation: Imagine that a mathematician came up with a new theorem but had not proven it. A colleague challenges the theorem, saying that it doesn’t make sense to him. The first mathematician replies, “Just because you are personally incredulous about my theorem doesn’t make it false!” Would we expect this argumentation to convince the mathematics community of the validity of the theorem, and to base a new branch of mathematics upon it?
Faith in Darwinian mechanisms to explain all of life really does demonstrate gullibility when one considers all of the obvious, gaping, evidential and logical holes in the theory.
Comment by GilDodgen — May 29, 2006 @ 8:42 am |
| Quote | #58
–”I added that one commentator made the following observation: Imagine that a mathematician came up with a new theorem but had not proven it. A colleague challenges the theorem, saying that it doesn’t make sense to him. The first mathematician replies, “Just because you are personally incredulous about my theorem doesn’t make it false!” Would we expect this argumentation to convince the mathematics community of the validity of the theorem, and to base a new branch of mathematics upon it?”–Comment by GilDodgen — May 29, 2006 @ 8:42 am
This is a poor analogy. A theorem is not a theorem without the proof. What you are refering to is properly called a conjecture.
Since there’s no proof of evolution doesn’t it then follow that it is conjecture? -ds
Comment by dennis grey — May 29, 2006 @
7:57 pm |
and right before that, Davetard wholly misunderstands basic statistics:
| Quote | #54
Given the current model of the universe it’s probably true that small variations would have made life (as we know it) impossible, but there’s no way of knowing right now what the possible variations are, so it seems meaningless to talk about “fine tuning” and possible “intelligent choice” of constants if we don’t know what the “tuning ranges” are of the so-called constants. We don’t even really know if the constants are really constant over time, that’s just an assumption. The current model of the universe appears to be deeply flawed given that cosmologists have to postulate on an almost daily basis different amounts of unobserved “dark matter” to make the observations fit the model.
Is it meaningless to talk about a cake recipe if we don’t know the range of choices in the ingredients? -ds
Comment by Raevmo — May 29, 2006 @
6:45 pm |
How dumb can a person be?
|
