More Recent Comments

Thursday, August 26, 2021

Conversation with Massimo Pigliucci

This is really worth one hour of your time. You will learn about knowledge and abduction and lots of other things.


12 comments :

  1. This is not persuasive. The creation is the evidence of god for historic mankind. Then the bible is believed to be a witness by those who do. Both are authority. You must prove them wrong before one must prove them right. Its a explicit declared statement. Rejection Theology is a premptive accusation of deception. its not neutral.
    This was a clumbsy attempt to say . on origin matters, we must believe the experts , those experts, and must not believe god/bible. he accuses creationism of pseudoscience. Sp he is accusing God/bible of that.
    God/bible is a claimed statement. or in law a ORAL WRITTEN STATEMENT presented to the trial.
    Otherwise if just humans then its the weighing of evidence. NOT authority of humans who have been, are, useless relative to accuracy. on the evidence folks.its psuedoscience to say its not science but experts with degrees on thier walls they got in thier late teens and early twenties.
    Do people still listen to jazz? I wish people would stop getting tattoos.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Then the bible is believed to be a witness by those who do."

      That's the point. You must have belief in its writings since there is no data or other evidence to support what it says, regardless of which human rewrite of its content you select. (Shouldn't you be capitalizing "Bible"?)

      Delete
    2. No its beside the point of data backing it up. it simply is a written oral statement. So one either believes it or disbelieves it. There is no neutrality then with anyone telling you some fact. If it was true it would be this way.
      I'm making the point Gods creation or the bible are intrusive hypothesis with the evidence of claims to eyewitness. Opponents can't say THEY only look at data. Witness is data.

      Delete
    3. "I'm making the point Gods creation or the bible are intrusive hypothesis with the evidence of claims to eyewitness"

      There is no evidence for it -- that's the point. "Witness" is a meaningless term when there is no external support for the assertion. I could say that I witnessed aliens abducting livestock from the farm I grew up on and there would be as much reason to believe that as there is to believe the Bible's contents.

      Delete
    4. Denying the legitimacy of witnesses is denying not just the law of all civilizations but the presumption behind it that a witness does have credibility in assessing evidence. A witness is not dismissed out of hand. Yery wrong on this.
      Your abduction case only makes cross examination important.

      Delete
    5. No, once again you have no clue. Witnesses are reliable only when there is the ability to verify their commentary (as your “cross examination” comment indicates). Once again, despite your habit of ignoring this, there is no external support for the stories in the Bible. That doesn’t even take into account the fact that there are no witnesses to the creation myths in the Bible — that part is pure fantasy.

      Delete
  2. Robert you are over stating your case. Witness is data is problematic enough as thousands of court cases show but we don't have witnesses, all we have are claimed reports of witnesses. The text is just text. Is it embellished, metaphor, mythology. You have to consider all these things before being able to have any view on its worth as eye testimony.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No/ its a claimed witness. or as in law a a written oral statement from a witness. The bible is a claimed witness. its saying this or that happened by those who witnessed it. Translating this to a written account.
      there it is. You must first say its a false witness and indeed prove it.

      Delete
  3. Hi Robert Byers,

    I'm very sorry, but I'm afraid science doesn't care what you believe.


    Cheers,

    Lamarck

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reality in general doesn't care what he believes.

      Delete
    2. Lamarck. Its about investigation and so I included a witness to what is being investigated. in fact trials in court are the same as science. Civil cases are like excellent ordinary investigation and criminal cases demand better evidence before a conclusion. the latter is science. Science is just a higher standard of investigation that can demand confidence in its conclusions. origin subjects fail mostly to be scientific because its about historical. past and gone events and processes. this is why evolutionism continues because its misunderstood how it fails to be science. So one can't show its false by science because no science shows its true. not biolgical science for its claims to biological processes.

      Delete
    3. Hi Robert Byers,

      and once again, science doesn’t care what you believe. Why should it, you are welcome to believe whatever you like. However, you don't seem to feel quite comfortable in your hole of “self-incurred immaturity” (Immanuel Kant) if you are dependent on defending your wishful thinking here “OT”. The defence of your private belief is so pitifully bad that it even constitutes a performative contradiction. Science is based on the principles of evidence, logic and reason, “faith™” on the other hand is arbitrary.

      And how do you even have the audacity to misuse the Bible as a supposed witness for your unspeakable dogmatism? The majority of Christians have no problem with science, evolution, tattoos, jazz or even experts with degrees on their walls. The Bible is not about whether evolution is right or wrong, it is about very different things. Unfortunately, this has slipped your mind...


      Cheers,

      Lamarck

      Delete