Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[Nathon Detroit]

EVOLUTION: Science or Science Fiction?
Battle Royale IX
Hilston vs. Stratnerd


Battle Royale IX is located here.

Both Hilston and Stratnerd have made their opening statements. What do you think of them? Who has positioned themselves better for the battle?

NOTE: Stratnerd posted two hours early and Hilston had some trouble posting and therefore made two posts. I am more relaxed these days and am not going to worry about these minor rules infractions. I will only take action if I feel a combatant breaks a rule that would allow him an unfair advantage in the battle i.e., editing a post after the other combatant made their next post or something major like that.

 

[The Berean]

I like Jim's approach. He is going to look at the root of the difference between evolutionists and creationists, thier underlying worldviews. This will make the debate far more interesting since mearly debating the "Evidence" will go nowhere fast. I didn't understand Stranerd's comment about falsifying evolution:

The most popular presentation of the scientific method is that of Popper where the hallmarks of science are falsification and skepticism. Skepticism is the incentive – and we usually articulated this as the scientist’s claim that all explanations are tentative and should be tested over and over. As Karl Popper (Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1959) put it: [an explanation (hypothesis) is speculation until it] "proved its mettle" by attempts to falsify it. What do we mean falsify? It means to build a test or make observations based on supposed mechanisms at work and if that mechanism is absent then the results or matching observation will not turn out as predicted. The way I build predictions is by means of “if-then” statements with justification. If you cannot justify it then you can’t make the “then” connection (see intelligent design for examples) This is, by far the most popular concept of the scientific method. In almost any text we see “observe, make a hypothesis, test it or make observations, then reject or support hypothesis [I would also add publish to this last step because what value is knowledge if not part of the scientific community?].

Isn't the purpose to create experiments, in terms of trying to falsify an hypothesis, to stablish results that are not predicted by the hypothesis itself?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Hey, what do you guys think of the new format where both fighters make their opening posts the first day? I have never liked (in past battles) that when the battle begins you had to wait a day or two for the first post to be made.

 

[The Berean]

Hey, what do you guys think of the new format where both fighters make their opening posts the first day? I have never liked (in past battles) that when the battle begins you had to wait a day or two for the first post to be made.

I like it. It gives the rest of us something to discuss while we wait for the Startnerd's next post. :thumb:

 

[Johnny]

"Isn't the purpose to create experiments, in terms of trying to falsify an hypothesis, to stablish results that are not predicted by the hypothesis itself?"

Yes, but Stratnerd is saying the same thing. He is saying that you pick a test of an underlying mechanism in your theory. If the observation isn't want was predicted, then the mechanism is absent or different than hypothesized.

What do we mean falsify? It means to build a test or make observations based on supposed mechanisms at work and if that mechanism is absent then the results or matching observation will not turn out as predicted.

 

[SUTG]

Hey, what do you guys think of the new format where both fighters make their opening posts the first day? I have never liked (in past battles) that when the battle begins you had to wait a day or two for the first post to be made.

Not only is it nicer for the peanut gallery (since we don't have to wait), but it also seems more fair. This way, one debator does not have the advantage of seeing the other's OP before posting his.

 

[SUTG]

Isn't the purpose to create experiments, in terms of trying to falsify an hypothesis, to stablish results that are not predicted by the hypothesis itself?

Yes. I think Stratnerd is using Popper's demarcation criteria to distinguish science from non-science. If there is not concieveable experiment that can be done to falsify a theory, it isn't science.

For example, if I posit a hypothesis that everytime an orange object touches a green object, the orange object turns blue. You could devise an experiment that would test, and potentially falsify, my hypothesis.

 

[The Berean]

Yes. I think Stratnerd is using Popper's demarcation criteria to distinguish science from non-science. If there is not concieveable experiment that can be done to falsify a theory, it isn't science.

Then youare saying the "theory" is not "science", right?

For example, if I posit a hypothesis that everytime an orange object touches a green object, the orange object turns blue. You could devise an experiment that would test, and potentially falsify, my hypothesis.

OK, I understand that. Let's say over the next 1000 years people perform millions of orange-blue tests. And every time an orange object touches a green object it turns blue. Would that confirm the theory to be true? It would, only if we've exhausted all green objects in the universe. But how would we know if we have exhausted all green objects in the universe?

 

[SUTG]

Then youare saying the "theory" is not "science", right?

No. I was just presenting Karl Popper's idea of the 'falsification criteria' as the demarcation between sciende and non-science.

OK, I understand that. Let's say over the next 1000 years people perform millions of orange-blue tests. And every time an orange object touches a green object it turns blue. Would that confirm the theory to be true? It would, only if we've exhausted all green objects in the universe. But how would we know if we have exhausted all green objects in the universe?

Sticking with Popper, we can never confirm a theory to be true. we can only falsify them.

 

[The Berean]

No. I was just presenting Karl Popper's idea of the 'falsification criteria' as the demarcation between sciende and non-science.



Sticking with Popper, we can never confirm a theory to be true. we can only falsify them.

I see. It seems, judging from your avatar, you've been inspired by On Fire. :chuckle:

 

[Servo]

Hey, what do you guys think of the new format where both fighters make their opening posts the first day? I have never liked (in past battles) that when the battle begins you had to wait a day or two for the first post to be made.

Yes, much better! :thumb:

 

[SUTG]

It seems, judging from your avatar, you've been inspired by On Fire. :chuckle:

Yes, I've been very inspired by the work of On Fire.

 

[mighty_duck]

My notes of the debate so far:
Stratnerd:
1. Made the standard positive claims regarding the debate subject, nothing unexpected.
2. Did volunteer to debunk creationism, since most of the audience here adheres to that.
3. It seems he did not do his homework on Hilston. This is not going to be a standard my evidence vs your evidence debate. It will be more on the lines of what is evidence, and what is your foundation to recognize evidence. If he is willing to engage his opponent on thier field and is really unprepared, then as Clete said, Hilston will eat his lunch.
A winning strategy would be to not get suckered in. This is not a debate about whether science is a credible worldview, but rather if evolution is science. Hilston will not let him out so easily, and if stratnerd sticks to this valid point, we will all be left with a very uninteresting debate. So Stratnerd will have to choose between winning (while appearing bad, he won't answer his opponents out-of-topic questions), or a risky but interesting debate.

Hilston.
1. Jim seems like one bright cookie, and his writing style and formating is much clearer. It looks like experience is on his side.
2. He has taken on much more burden than would be necessary to win the debate. All he had to do was falsify the statement "evolution is science", but he took on the responsibility of a positive claim regarding creationism.
3. I hope this debate won't get too bogged down in terminology. It would be unfortunate to reach round 7 when the debaters still have trouble agreeing on basics. Hilston's case is largely based on agreeing to favorable terminology, so I doubt he would make many concessions here. His experience is showing, in that he defines many terms in advance, to save some back and forth.
4. His definition of faith should raise some objections.
5. Winning the debate. Hilston recognizes that no one is actually going to admit defeat here, and is laying the groundwork to claim he has won.
6. Definition of science. This is where the future of this debate stands or falls. Hilston makes some fantastic claims here (that the biblical worldview is required to make sense of science). Opposing this will mean Stratnerd has been suckered in to Hilston's well mined territory.
7. Hilston does leave his chosen path of debate a couple of times, such as claims like

how does his worldview get things to become their opposites? E.g. Orderliness out of chaos. How does Muller's paradigm generate such things as hearing and seeing..

These are direct attacks on the Evolutionary theory, and Stratnerd should be able to combat these types of claims. Hilston main claim does not rely on this, but it would be interesting to see him defend it.

 

[GuySmiley]

Hey, what do you guys think of the new format where both fighters make their opening posts the first day? I have never liked (in past battles) that when the battle begins you had to wait a day or two for the first post to be made.

Hey good question because this was the essence of the comment I was going to make! After reading Stratnerds post I was thinking I didn't like it because he only provided definitions and didn't really make any kind of argument. I was thinking that the first round would be a waste. But I was happy to see the last part of Hilston's post where he actually began an argument and we can get a glimpse of where he'll be headed. In short I like the new format, if both parties would agree to get to the point instead of wasting the first round.

 

[fool]

A big :thumb: to Hilston for this part;

for to delegitimize one view does not sufficiently prove the legitimacy of the opposing view

Maybe he can help us explain that to Bob in the nodule thread.
But then he falls in this hole.

The Creationist has a rational foundation for believing in the uniformity of nature and that future events under certain conditions will be like past events under similar conditions. The foundation of this principle is the existence and attributes of God and His maintenance of the universe.

It's like saying "if you don't believe in the Flying Spigetti Monster you nave no foundation to believe anything" It seems to this Atheist that Theists want you to believe in some kind of God, no matter which God, cause you can't know anything unless you first believe.
If this were true, then An Unbeliever would invariably come to the wrong conclusion, or a correct conclusion that was somehow conterfiet?
How do you tell the difference between a correct conclusion and a conterfiet correct conclusion?
Seems as though if you use Hilstons standard the foundational logic of any conclusion would depend on the positors state of believing in God or not Believing in God.
Hence a conterfiet correct conclusion could become a legitamate correct conclusion by virtue of a change in the positors worldview.
So if you asked Hilston "here is a statement by person a, is it a correct conclusion? or a conterfiet correct conclusion?" he could only respond with "it depends on what the person thinks now ".

 

[SUTG]

6. Definition of science. This is where the future of this debate stands or falls. Hilston makes some fantastic claims here (that the biblical worldview is required to make sense of science). Opposing this will mean Stratnerd has been suckered in to Hilston's well mined territory.

I'm almost certain :chuckle: that this will generate into another tired Argument by Assertion, like Clete's Carl Sagan thread. Here is a hint:

The Creationist's faith in God grounds his reliance upon the principle of induction. Whereas, the Evolutionist must believe it blindly, with no rational grounding whatsoever.

I'll wager you dollars to donuts that Hilsont will be as skeptical as they come until it is time to assert absolute knowledge of the Christian Triune God.

Over the years, I've scome across quite a few of these transcendental argument threads, and they always end the same.

 

[The Berean]

I'm almost certain :chuckle: that this will generate into another tired Argument by Assertion, like Clete's Carl Sagan thread. Here is a hint:



I'll wager you dollars to donuts that Hilsont will be as skeptical as they come until it is time to assert absolute knowledge of the Christian Triune God.

Over the years, I've scome across quite a few of these transcendental argument threads, and they always end the same.

Since the topic of this debate, I'm sure, has been debated for decades what new argument can there possibly be?

 

[Johnny]

Hilston's approach was a bit suprising, I didn't think he'd come out so opposed to intelligent design.

Nonetheless, what's to stop me from substituing the flying spaghetti monster as the one who told me that the axioms science assumes are correct? Or what about a giant axiom spitting machine who spits out true axioms at earthlings who happened to write them down? Further, why is faith in God any different than just assuming axioms?

Hilston concludes with:

Evolution, although it employs scientific principles by borrowing them from the Creationist toolbox, is blindly religious, and therefore does not qualify as science.

But the same worldview brought us all the other disciplines of science as well as their respective advancements. Do these not qualify as science? Does that make them invalid?

 

[SUTG]

Since the topic of this debate, I'm sure, has been debated for decades what new argument can there possibly be?

Apparently, not all of the transcendentalists got the memo.

 

[mighty_duck]

Nonetheless, what's to stop me from substituing the flying spaghetti monster as the one who told me that the axioms science assumes are correct? Or what about a giant axiom spitting machine who spits out true axioms at earthlings who happened to write them down? Further, why is faith in God any different than just assuming axioms?

As far as I can tell, Hilston will claim that a worldview has to account for everything in this world, including logic, natural laws, morality, love, etc. and that the only possible presupposition that can account for all that is the Christian god.
Logicallty, I think he has a point. I would love to see him try to prove all other groundings of axioms to be impossible. The Flying Spaghetti Monster seems to have a MUCH better account for the existence of pasta in the world.