Rocks with bad intentions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-08-2015, 09:09 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 08:47 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Nah, he's saying that since we can't test the dice (in his example) that there'd be no way to tell natural effect (physics) from intent (cheating by weighting or special-throwing the die), in an attempt (again!) to create rhetorical equalization of "intentionality" and "unintentionality" in his prior discussion. Except in both the natural world and in this example, we do test, and keep finding no examples of weighted dice, even though a great many people keep insisting that SOMEWHERE there's a weighted die (and even that the dice we tested are weighted, even though they were tested and found to be regular).

Really, I'm bewildered that someone can have the knowledge presented in this video, and not hypothesize that god doesn't exist.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Matt Finney's post
12-08-2015, 09:18 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
Seriously, when I hear these "god of the gaps" arguments, in this day and age, when we know so much about science, it'd be like someone saying, "Okay, sure, most of those dice-rolls were natural, but roll #78 and roll #86 weren't tested, and you can't know it wasn't God!"

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
13-08-2015, 03:57 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 08:30 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Technically, the probability of tomasia winning the bet with unweighted dice is (1 / 20)*100, or about 0.7888609x10^-13.

That wouldn't be my odds, that'd be the odds of a the person betting it's a fluke.

Where as my bet that it was intentional, is based the likelihood of a D20 dice that rolls 20, hundred times being a standard dice, thrown without any tricky, is far less likely than the dice being weighted, or intentionally thrown in a way to produce that result.

While I may not have the means to calculate what those exact odds are, it's pretty safe to say it would far more likely than a fluke (unweighted, etc..).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 04:05 AM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2015 04:27 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 08:23 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Oh, and that's a very dishonest way to describe the "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" program set up by Dawkins to demonstrate cumulative selection, which it did just fine.

That's fine, I shouldn't have referred to it as demonstrating natural selection. It was a merely a thought experiment, I can concede the "cumulative selection" part as well.

The reason I mentioned the Weasel Program, was more for the sake of having a second analogy as a point of reference, besides just the dice. And it particularly to highlight the notion that the software was "weighted" to produce the result, and the result wasn't a "fluke". That we can speak of the software as we would weighted dice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 04:11 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 08:47 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Nah, he's saying that since we can't test the dice (in his example) that there'd be no way to tell natural effect (physics) from intent (cheating by weighting or special-throwing the die), in an attempt (again!) to create rhetorical equalization of "intentionality" and "unintentionality" in his prior discussion. Except in both the natural world and in this example, we do test, and keep finding no examples of weighted dice, even though a great many people keep insisting that SOMEWHERE there's a weighted die (and even that the dice we tested are weighted, even though they were tested and found to be regular).

But what would weighted dice in regards to the universe look like?

In regards to the dice example, where do you see yourself?

Do you see yourself as a man a who observed the rolls, and then examined the dice and the throw, and confirmed that they were not weighted, or intentionally thrown in a way to produce that result? Do you see yourself in relationship to this analogy as someone who confirmed it was a fluke? It's important that you also recognize that if you do see yourself as analogous to such a person, you wouldn't merely lack belief it was intentional. You would believe it wasn't intentional (because you believe it to be a fluke).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 04:19 AM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2015 04:27 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 09:09 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Really, I'm bewildered that someone can have the knowledge presented in this video, and not hypothesize that god doesn't exist.

What do you mean by "hypothesize that god doesn't exist"? Does it just mean to be open to the idea of God not existing, as opposed to believing God doesn't exist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 04:31 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 04:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 08:47 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Nah, he's saying that since we can't test the dice (in his example) that there'd be no way to tell natural effect (physics) from intent (cheating by weighting or special-throwing the die), in an attempt (again!) to create rhetorical equalization of "intentionality" and "unintentionality" in his prior discussion. Except in both the natural world and in this example, we do test, and keep finding no examples of weighted dice, even though a great many people keep insisting that SOMEWHERE there's a weighted die (and even that the dice we tested are weighted, even though they were tested and found to be regular).

But what would weighted dice in regards to the universe look like?

In regards to the dice example, where do you see yourself?

Do you see yourself as a man a who observed the rolls, and then examined the dice and the throw, and confirmed that they were not weighted, or intentionally thrown in a way to produce that result? Do you see yourself in relationship to this analogy as someone who confirmed it was a fluke? It's important that you also recognize that if you do see yourself as analogous to such a person, you wouldn't merely lack belief it was intentional. You would believe it wasn't intentional (because you believe it to be a fluke).

In the case of the dice, you hypothesize (bet) on intentionality, but in the case of the universe you conclude intentionality.

Do you see the problem here?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 04:32 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 08:23 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  For a all we know, a world with a god would look the same as a world without a god, so why would you jump to the conclusion of god?

What conclusion should we jump to then? That it was just a fluke, a cosmic accident?

In the dice example, provided all we observed is the dice rolling 20s a hundred times, and we're not able to inspect the dice, or the throw. What conclusion should we jump to?

Should we jump to the conclusion that it was a fluke? That it was intentional?

Or would you suggest that we shouldn't jump to a conclusion one way or the other?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 04:33 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 04:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 09:09 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Really, I'm bewildered that someone can have the knowledge presented in this video, and not hypothesize that god doesn't exist.

What do you mean by "hypothesize that god doesn't exist"? Does it just mean to be open to the idea of God not existing, as opposed to believing God doesn't exist?

I mean to make a guess based on limited evidence. IMO it would be silly to form a belief either way until conclusive evidence is discovered.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 04:36 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 04:32 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 08:23 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  For a all we know, a world with a god would look the same as a world without a god, so why would you jump to the conclusion of god?

What conclusion should we jump to then? That it was just a fluke, a cosmic accident?

In the dice example, provided all we observed is the dice rolling 20s a hundred times, and we're not able to inspect the dice, or the throw. What conclusion should we jump to?

Should we jump to the conclusion that it was a fluke? That it was intentional?

Or would you suggest that we shouldn't jump to a conclusion one way or the other?

Exactly!

no conclusive evidence = no conclusion

I believe that scientific skepticism is the best method for knowing truths.

"Scientific skeptics believe that empirical investigation of reality leads to the truth, and that the scientific method is best suited to this purpose.[citation needed]

Scientific skeptics attempt to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability and discourage accepting claims on faith or anecdotal evidence. Skeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider to be implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science. Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds - rather they argue that claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena should be critically examined and that extraordinary claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favor before they could be accepted as having validity.[citation needed]

From a scientific point of view, theories are judged on many criteria, such as falsifiability, Occam's Razor, and explanatory power, as well as the degree to which their predictions match experimental results.[citation needed] Skepticism is part of the scientific method; for instance an experimental result is not regarded as established until it can be shown to be repeatable independently.[7]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific...m#Overview
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: