Truth and its pursuit

[David Koot]

In the case of origins of the earth, we have to

(a) very detailed initial state,

[bevin]

Quote:

I think we know little about the earth's initial state. What we think we do know, is perforce secondhand information.

To run the model, we don't 'know', we 'guess'. It is as much a part of the model as setting g = 9.8m/s2. To make it easier to guess, we actually run the model backwards, putting in our current observations, and calculating the initial state.

We then use this initial state and a forward-play of the model to make other predictions, and compare those with the current state.

This approach is exactly the same as is used to develop chemistry, physics, and biology.

Quote:

The danger of circular reasoning and setting up a strawman should be self-evident IMO.

At first glance the process does appear to be circular - start here, play backwards, play forwards, end up here - but it is the playing forwards to make predictions that were not in starting data that breaks the circularity.

It is the ability to make accurate predictions about things that we previously did not have access to.

Quote:

Growing numbers of scientists are abandoning...

Undoubtedly, different schools of thought exist on this point...

That I know to be incorrect...

growing numbers of scientists have been turning to Intelligent Design...

Now we are moving away from using the predictive power of the model to decide whether it is true, to using a personal assessment of other people's actions.

This is an interesting step, because it shows that we are NOT being objective about finding the truth - we are not studying the basic model and its predictions, but rather its effects on people.

If we are going to give up on using objective criteria, and start looking at people who are doing what is emotionally comfortable for them, then we may as well start doing it right away and not go through all the bother of doing science.

In other words - use what emotionally appeals to us to decide what is truth. This definition means truth is indeed a subjective thing.

/Bevin

[David Koot]

Quote:

I think we know little about the earth's initial state. What we think we do know, is perforce secondhand information.

To run the model, we don't 'know', we 'guess'. It is as much a part of the model as setting g = 9.8m/s2. To make it easier to guess, we actually run the model backwards, putting in our current observations, and calculating the initial state.

We then use this initial state and a forward-play of the model to make other predictions, and compare those with the current state.

This approach is exactly the same as is used to develop chemistry, physics, and biology.

Quote:

The danger of circular reasoning and setting up a strawman should be self-evident IMO.

At first glance the process does appear to be circular - start here, play backwards, play forwards, end up here - but it is the playing forwards to make predictions that were not in starting data that breaks the circularity.

It is the ability to make accurate predictions about things that we previously did not have access to.

Quote:

Growing numbers of scientists are abandoning...

Undoubtedly, different schools of thought exist on this point...

That I know to be incorrect...

growing numbers of scientists have been turning to Intelligent Design...

Now we are moving away from using the predictive power of the model to decide whether it is true, to using a personal assessment of other people's actions.

This is an interesting step, because it shows that we are NOT being objective about finding the truth - we are not studying the basic model and its predictions, but rather its effects on people.

If we are going to give up on using objective criteria, and start looking at people who are doing what is emotionally comfortable for them . . . in other words - use what emotionally appeals to us to decide what is truth.

[bevin]

Quote:

However, neither assertions, conclusions nor disparagement of other views are objective evidence in terms of discovering what is truth.

David and I have both made claims about measurable observations, without actually citing the measurement - my claims about the accuracy of the evolutionary model, and that "no creationists have found a similarly powerful model", and David's claims that "growing numbers of scientists are abandoning..."

This happens for in the search for objective truth when the seeker does not have the resources (time, money, equipment, intellect, ...) to do the process of testing the proposed models for themselves.

Each seeker will reach this point, and they are left with few alternatives

(a) Make a choice and act like they are certain of it,

( Make a choice, but admit that it is possibly wrong, or

© Refuse to make a choice

The choice can be made by

(1) Trust some outside source to tell them what is right,

(2) Make an unreliable choice for themselves

However, if one gots to this point and decides to use (a) or ( I would not describe that result as "objective truth". It is clearly simply the seeker's personal preference - very subjective.

/Bevin

[David Koot]

Quote:

However, neither assertions, conclusions nor disparagement of other views are objective evidence in terms of discovering what is truth.

David and I have both made claims about measurable observations, without actually citing the measurement - my claims about the accuracy of the evolutionary model, and that "no creationists have found a similarly powerful model", and David's claims that "growing numbers of scientists are abandoning..."

This happens for in the search for objective truth when the seeker does not have the resources (time, money, equipment, intellect, ...) to do the process of testing the proposed models for themselves.

[bevin]

Yep - the bottom line is we live in a complex and interesting world; one where we have to learn to live with significant uncertainties... and I am sure God understands this even better than we do.

/Bevin

[David Koot]

Well, now, this is a momentous occasion! Bevin and I, as two students and seekers after truth, appear to have reached a level of accord about this important subject. 'Tis time for an alcohol-free toast!

Cheers.

[David Koot]

And now, I wish to pull the various strands together into a cohesive understanding, as I see it:

1) There is evidence for us to observe, in the world around us.

2) There is evidence in the Bible about God.

3) There is archaeological and historical evidence.

4) There is textual evidence.

After considering all this and more available evidence, a seeker for truth is still left with unknowns. It is as s/he confronts these unknowns that a 'leap of faith' is necessitated. That is true, regardless of the direction the student chooses. S/he will end of having to exercise faith in SOMETHING or SOMEONE. (For example, I know an atheist who puts his faith in the inevitability of human progress--social Darwinism.)

I choose to believe in God. I choose to believe in the Bible as God's inspired Word. From the perspective of a purist, there are too many unknowns which cannot be nailed down empirically, to PROVE either the existence of God, or that the Bible, in its original form, accurately recorded messages from God--or that God has protected and preserved the Bible throughout the centuries, and the generations of copies. I do see what appears to this observer, to be credible evidence of these things. In the end, however, I must take them on faith. Faith based on evidence, but nonetheless, unavoidably, faith. In exercising that faith, I am at peace with my intellect. The evidence I have seen in support of these things is credible, and points to the veracity of these things, rather than undermining them. But, God, by design I believe, has left the door open, has provided 'wiggle room' for those who do not want to believe in Him.

Dave

[bevin]

I also choose to believe in God. I also choose to believe in the Bible as God's inspired Word.

However I do not believe that inspired requires correct about science and ancient history.

I believe that the evidence in favor of evolution and a long-aged Earth is far stronger than the evidence in favor of the Bible being infallible in these areas, and so I follow Galileo's (?) advice that

the Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go

For this reason I am annoyed by David's remark that

Quote:

But, God, by design I believe, has left the door open, has provided 'wiggle room' for those who do not want to believe in Him.

(a) It is possible to be a Christian and an evolutionist, and there are tens of millions who are in this group.

( By David's own admission, he can get no where near proving the correctness of the Bible in these areas - it is not 'wiggle room', it is a wide open space.

/Bevin

[David Koot]

However I do not believe that inspired requires correct about science and ancient history.

[David Koot]

I have started a new thread in the Bible and Theology forum, addressing the nature of the Bible's inspiration. Seems like an important issue to examine.

Dave

[Bravus]

I've read the last few pages of this discussion with interest, although I haven't been participating as much. I think perhaps there is one empirical, measurable (albeit in the social rather than the physical sciences) statement that was discarded as unknowable too lightly. This was Dave's statement that 'growing numbers of scientists are turning away from evolution toward Intelligent Design' (he made the claim in a couple of forms, but we could fix on one to measure). Is this true? And is it 'growing numbers' or 'a growing proportion'? In other words, if the total number of scientists is growing faster than the number who turn to ID, then the proportion of scientists supporting ID is actually shrinking, even if the numbers are growing. Anyway, the statement has been made strongly... where's the evidence?

[David Koot]

Indeed. Growing numbers of scientists have been abandoning long-age evolution in favor of other theories. Not all have turned to ID. Many are leaning toward Stuard Kaufmann's treatise on the self-organization of matter. Many, also, have turned to ID over the past few decades. Of course, as you point out, I have made a statement without providing substantiation--a cardinal sin, indeed. I would have to do some digging to come up with hard numbers. But, come now, Bravus. I can't help but remember what Winston said in his very readable "History of the English-Speaking Peoples" about those revisionist historians who are so overly concerned with the 'facts.' (Even relegating King Arthur to the role of some petty local chieftan!) LOL

Dave

[bevin]

Quote:

Growing numbers of scientists have been abandoning long-age evolution in favor of other theories

You need to be VERY careful about what, precisely, they are abandoning.

Maybe they are not abandoning either the dating, or the cladistics, or the general shape of the inheritance tree, but just the precise details of what causes mutation and selection.

Maybe they are not even abandoning that, but simply disagreeing with something about the very-hand-wavey origin of the first prokaryote cells

/Bevin