[split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-01-2014, 12:58 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 04:32 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(03-01-2014 02:14 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I understand and have read the history on the coining of the term.
To me it is unimportant what was originally intended by the meaning of the term.

Even when the original meaning is still the vastly predominant meaning?
I don't know if that is true.
Is this the case in your social/academic circles? You go to a Christian school, right?

(03-01-2014 04:32 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Maybe in some places, but the original intent is still very much the way the phrase is most commonly used. It is assumption and misunderstanding that extended the semantic field to include a completely different phenomenon.
I think the definition you hold is misleading as the phrase "God of the Gaps" does not include a qualifier to suggest that its logic is bound to current scientific understanding. A gap could be because the individual is ignorant of scientific knowledge, there is no indicator in the phrase to suggest this case disqualifies.

(03-01-2014 04:32 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(03-01-2014 02:14 PM)Stevil Wrote:  To me, it is unimportant whether the gap is as per current scientific knowledge or whether it is merely ignorance of the person with the gap of knowledge. What is important is that it is a gap.
The second qualifier is filling that gap with an assumption of "god did it", without providing any positive evidence for this act of god.

Whether scientists have already filled the gap with scientific knowledge, are likely to fill the gap or are unlikely to fill the gap is unimportant.

We could make a distinction in these terms. My version would be "God of the Gaps" yours would be "God of the Scientific Gaps".

I don't think the academic community would appreciate you co-opting the phrase and then asking them to come up with an alternative. The phrase has a very specific technical sense.
To my mind it would be disingenuous to use the phrase in a way to say that a person holding a belief that the moon facing Earth is proof of God does not count as a "God of the Gaps" argument.
Both GOTGs arguments and this moon argument fail for the same two logical fallacies.
1. Ignorance
2. Begs the Question.

In 2 they are both inserting an unproven, unsupported god into the mix.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2014, 07:38 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 05:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  You make a trivial point.

No, I don't, and your inability to answer betrays just how non-trivial it is, doesn't it?

(03-01-2014 05:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  The text exists, that is an objective fact.

My question wasn't whether or not it existed, me question was, where does it exist? You've acknowledged there is no meaning ontologically inhabiting the ink on the page or the pixels on the screen. Don't just bark that it has to exist somewhere just because, tell me where the meaning resides.

(03-01-2014 05:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't create the text or its meaning, I perceive it and its meaning.

If you misunderstand the meaning, where does the inaccurate meaning come from? Did you create it, or are all possible wrong meanings also emanating from the text for your eyes to passively receive? It comes from you, because the meaning is something you produce. This is undergrad level linguistics, Chas.

(03-01-2014 05:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  My perception of the meaning will be imperfect to some degree.

Because you're not perceiving, but creating. Any meaning apart from the specific and exact intended meaning must be created somewhere. The text is not simultaneously endowed with and radiating all possible meaning, is it?

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2014, 07:45 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(04-01-2014 12:58 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I don't know if that is true.

Can you find any academic publication or dictionary of usage that does not define the "god of the gaps" firstly and primarily as the fallacy I described?

(04-01-2014 12:58 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Is this the case in your social/academic circles?

No, this is the case in all the research I've seen on the topic.

(04-01-2014 12:58 AM)Stevil Wrote:  You go to a Christian school, right?

I do not. I have been to Christian schools, but most of my current academic circles come either from my professional activities outside of school work or from my time at Oxford.

(03-01-2014 04:32 PM)maklelan Wrote:  I think the definition you hold is misleading as the phrase "God of the Gaps" does not include a qualifier to suggest that its logic is bound to current scientific understanding.

So what? You going to appeal to a species of etymological fallacy?

(04-01-2014 12:58 AM)Stevil Wrote:  A gap could be because the individual is ignorant of scientific knowledge, there is no indicator in the phrase to suggest this case disqualifies.

And word and phrase meanings are not based exclusively or even primarily on etymologies.

(04-01-2014 12:58 AM)Stevil Wrote:  To my mind it would be disingenuous to use the phrase in a way to say that a person holding a belief that the moon facing Earth is proof of God does not count as a "God of the Gaps" argument.

But that's just inventing new uses of the phrase because you like the sound of it. A belief is not an argument.

(04-01-2014 12:58 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Both GOTGs arguments and this moon argument fail for the same two logical fallacies.
1. Ignorance
2. Begs the Question.

But a belief is not an argument, ignorance is not a logical fallacy, and there's no begging the question anywhere in the argument as you've presented it.

(04-01-2014 12:58 AM)Stevil Wrote:  In 2 they are both inserting an unproven, unsupported god into the mix.

But now you're just saying they hold to a belief they can't empirically support. This isn't at all what the god of the gaps fallacy constitutes.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2014, 07:49 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(04-01-2014 07:38 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(03-01-2014 05:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  You make a trivial point.

No, I don't, and your inability to answer betrays just how non-trivial it is, doesn't it?

(03-01-2014 05:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  The text exists, that is an objective fact.

My question wasn't whether or not it existed, me question was, where does it exist? You've acknowledged there is no meaning ontologically inhabiting the ink on the page or the pixels on the screen. Don't just bark that it has to exist somewhere just because, tell me where the meaning resides.

(03-01-2014 05:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't create the text or its meaning, I perceive it and its meaning.

If you misunderstand the meaning, where does the inaccurate meaning come from? Did you create it, or are all possible wrong meanings also emanating from the text for your eyes to passively receive? It comes from you, because the meaning is something you produce. This is undergrad level linguistics, Chas.

(03-01-2014 05:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  My perception of the meaning will be imperfect to some degree.

Because you're not perceiving, but creating. Any meaning apart from the specific and exact intended meaning must be created somewhere. The text is not simultaneously endowed with and radiating all possible meaning, is it?

The paper and ink is a storage medium for the information which is the text.
That text exists independent of your perception. The text comprises information, data, therefore meaning.
I am not creating that information, I am perceiving it. My perception may be imperfect and I may create meaning where there is none.

The text has the meaning it has. It is one's perception that can misinterpret that meaning as you misunderstood the paper on population genetics. You created a meaning that is not in the text.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2014, 07:52 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(04-01-2014 12:35 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Hmmm, 'data' and 'information' are categories but categories are tricky 'cause really it's a continuum. But neither are meaning in and of themselves ... not without context.

Yes, but you provided the context, and within the context of your quotation, data and information are being used to refer to their meaning, not their representation. Also, I see no relevance to the topic at hand.

(04-01-2014 12:35 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I am the only person qualified to read that material. It would be irresponsible of me to provide links and references. It is dangerous and potentially life threatening for the untrained to read such things.

Danger's my middle name (besides Orrin).

(04-01-2014 12:35 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I thought the thread topic was evidence?

I didn't name this thread. It was split off of another thread about asking theists, and I think the word "evidence" is in reference to specific kinds of evidence being brought up.

(04-01-2014 12:35 AM)DLJ Wrote:  COBIT is the definitive text for Information Assurance.

I'll have to take your word for it.

(04-01-2014 12:35 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Given that we are all essentially information, what better than the new bible for the information age to help us reveal truth?

Another manifestation of science as religion?

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes maklelan's post
04-01-2014, 08:24 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(04-01-2014 07:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  The paper and ink is a storage medium for the information which is the text.

No, unless you're saying ink and paper stores actual data the way a flash drive does, there is no information on a page. What's on the page is symbol that a mind must be able to connect with information already stored in itself. If a text stored information we would be able to unlock and retrieve it without already having to have it in our minds, but that's a physical impossibility, isn't it? You cannot read a language you don't know. You cannot read a word you don't already know. You cannot understand a sentence that follows grammatical patterns you don't already know. We never understand anything we don't already know. Even learning is a process of taking what we do already know and rearranging it in our heads so that our minds come to new understanding.

(04-01-2014 07:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  That text exists independent of your perception.

The physical text does, but the information it symbolizes absolutely does not. If it did there would be a way to retrieve it without the mediation of a mind, but even with OCR and advanced computer systems capable of analyzing grammar and syntax we have to tell the computer how to interpret stuff, and it still gets it wrong most of the time.

(04-01-2014 07:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  The text comprises information, data, therefore meaning.

No, the text comprises a set of symbols. The meaning and the data reside in the interpretation of those symbols.

(04-01-2014 07:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  I am not creating that information, I am perceiving it. My perception may be imperfect and I may create meaning where there is none.

So you're saying I actually am creating meaning, but only when I misunderstand a text? So if accurately understanding a text is just the passive retrieval of meaning, and misunderstanding a text is actually creation meaning, why is the brain doing the exact same thing in both instances? Neuroscientists and cognitive linguistics have observed brain activity during numerous, numerous different kinds of reading and comprehension, and while the difficulty and comprehensibility of a text shows the brain acts differently when it has to struggle to understand, there is simply no difference whatsoever between the what the brain is doing when it picks a correct interpretation and blithely picks an incorrect interpretation. For instance, when I lived in Oxford I had an English couple living below me in my flat. If I sent them a text to tell them they could borrow my car, and that the keys were "in the boot" (a cowboy boot by the front door in which I placed my keys), they would automatically, and without even thinking about it, interpret it to mean the keys were in the trunk of the car. The activity taking place in their brains would be absolutely and entirely indistinguishable from an accurate comprehension of the text, but it would be wrong.

On what is this conclusion of yours based, since it's obviously not science, observation, or any kind of extended research? I earlier pointed out that you're just arguing ad hoc, and I think this stepping on your own toes is a pretty clear betrayal of that.

(04-01-2014 07:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  The text has the meaning it has.

Absolutely untrue. A text's meaning can be changed innumerable times. Even an author can arrive at a new understanding. I used to be the editorial cartoonist for the Brigham Young University student newspaper, and I can recall a cartoon I wrote with a rather vague concept in mind, but after it was published the feedback was unilaterally that it meant something related to, but different from, my original intention. It struck me that that meaning was much better, though, and even since I have adopted that meaning. No one ever knew about my original intent, and I have abandoned it entirely. Now tell me, did that new meaning magically become imbued into the physical copies of the text, evicting the old meaning? If a scientist were to examine the text, would there be any way at all possible for them to determine that the meaning I now assert was not, in fact, the "real" meaning? Does that "real" meaning that no one besides me ever knew about in any way have any actual existence whatsoever in the universe? The very obvious answer to all these questions is a resounding no. Meaning does not reside in the text, it resides in the reader.

(04-01-2014 07:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  It is one's perception that can misinterpret that meaning as you misunderstood the paper on population genetics. You created a meaning that is not in the text.

So explain why the creation of meaning and the retrieval of meaning are absolutely and utterly indistinguishable, and why every test or experiment that has ever been conducted shows that the brain itself produces the understanding it arrives at regarding a text's interpretation.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2014, 08:27 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(04-01-2014 08:24 AM)maklelan Wrote:  No, unless you're saying ink and paper stores actual data the way a flash drive does, there is no information on a page. What's on the page is symbol that a mind must be able to connect with information already stored in itself. If a text stored information we would be able to unlock and retrieve it without already having to have it in our minds, but that's a physical impossibility, isn't it? You cannot read a language you don't know. You cannot read a word you don't already know. You cannot understand a sentence that follows grammatical patterns you don't already know. We never understand anything we don't already know. Even learning is a process of taking what we do already know and rearranging it in our heads so that our minds come to new understanding.

Takes "open to interpretation" to a whole new level. I'd actually never thought of it as you've described it here (paragraph of yours quoted). Certainly some good-for-thought.Thumbsup

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2014, 09:52 AM (This post was last modified: 04-01-2014 09:57 AM by Chas.)
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(04-01-2014 08:24 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(04-01-2014 07:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  The paper and ink is a storage medium for the information which is the text.

No, unless you're saying ink and paper stores actual data the way a flash drive does, there is no information on a page.

Yes, ink and paper stores data precisely as a flash drive does. It's data.
If you don't understand that, it explains your bizarre interpretation of meaning.

I can't address the rest of your points until that misunderstanding is cleared up.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
04-01-2014, 10:34 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Can we take a step back for a moment. Mak what exactly are you saying here, because to me it is almost like you are proposing some bizarre form of literary solipsism. A text has no meaning unless a reader interprets it? I can understand wanting to contextualise what is written but at some point the words on the page (in whatever form, chas is right ink and parchment is no different in application to a flash drive) say what they say. To try and claim that there is no meaning whatsoever in words is to deny all of human culture. I can't believe that is what you are trying to state so can you please explain yourself so we can move on from the pedantic arguing.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Revenant77x's post
04-01-2014, 11:50 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Maybe some best practice definitions might help (maybe not)?

In terms of storage, Data, Information and Knowledge can all be stored (within a system). Wisdom can not.

Definitions:

Data is a set of discrete facts. These could be just ones and zeros.

Information comes from providing context to data. Information is typically stored in semi-structured content such as documents, email and multimedia.

Knowledge is composed of the tacit experiences, ideas, insights, values and judgements of individuals. People gain knowledge both from their own and from their peers’ expertise, as well as from the analysis of information (and data). Through the synthesis of these elements, new knowledge is created.
Knowledge is dynamic and context-based. Knowledge puts information into an ‘ease of use’ form, which can facilitate decision-making.

Wisdom makes use of knowledge to create value through correct and well-informed decisions. Wisdom involves having the application and contextual awareness to provide strong common-sense judgement.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: