From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 4 Sep 92 01:39:52 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <87732@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1288@tecsun1.etl.army.mil>, riggs@descartes (Bill Riggs) writes:

>Tell you what: you stick to debate, I'll stick to debate.  Deal?  That
>means you don't drop one-liners about the evidence of evolution being
>beans, and I won't make any more cranial allusions.

	Criminy, if you had wanted to have a serious debate, this would 
not have got so far. You spend most of this last counterpost providing views
which support my most inflammatory statements !! For instance:



>the evidence doesn't constitute a simple
>binary choice, but involves such a complex web of multiple and variable
>sources that it's impossible to assign dates to when the evidence reached
>critical mass.  Different researchers were convinced by different examples.
>And not just because certain examples were more or less convincing than
>others, but because human deduction is fundamentally non-monotonic, and
>each researcher was exposed to different (even if only chronologically)
>accumulations of data.  Third--the question is further malformed.  It
>assumes that your categories (see below) are all distinct and can be
>easily distinguished.  Excluding abiogenesis, this is false, as they are
>all interconnected and mutually support each other.

	One of our differences lies in the question of what concepts 
are separable and which are not. Your are quite correct that the 
question was deconstructionist by design. Since the Bible and 
evolutionary biology are at odds, something has to give somewhere.



>
>A valid question would be to identify reasonable terminal dates for
>evolution and abiogenesis separately.  I'll only give very conservative
>upper bounds--for most researchers, the critical mass was reached long
>before.
>
>>	- Abiogenesis ?
>>	- Natural Selection ?
>>	- Speciation ?
>>	- Mutation ?
>>	- Variations in gene pools ?
>
>Excluding abiogenesis, I'd say the last intelligent dissents ended by
>1905.  For the physicists realized that between radioactivity and E=mc^2,
>their young earth models null and void, and not listening to the solid
>weight of historical evidence had been foolish on their part.

	I have to say that I thought Chris's reply was more relevant.
Once again, the interdependency stuff seems to be the point at
issue. Why does science need to be a black box, take it or leave it ?

>
>Abiogenesis is much more subtle.  To stick to a conservative estimate,
>I'll pick the 1981? Nobel prize to Cech for RNA autocatalysis as an
>easily identified landmark.

	Noted.

>
>>	It might help to think about the question before answering.
>
>Considering that you didn't even think *before* raising the question, your
>request is a mite supercilious.

	Actually, I'm quite pleased with your answers.

>
>I certainly wasn't talking about Genesis 1.  What's your point in
>bringing up the worst case history-wise?  You still have a difficult
>philosophical problem regarding *any* primary text.  The exact same
>problem that natural historians face.  Why should we believe that any
>such are indeed representational of its apparent day and age?

	If you start veering much more in this direction, you might
end up putting biology into the same deconstructionist vise that
bedevils historical research. If that happens, your opponents *will*
get the better of you, because at that time, there *will* be nothing
but two competing, but unprovable theories.


>
>>>How, in fact, do we claim to know anything about Julius Caesar?  The
>>>process of acquiring historical knowledge is far more subtle philoso-
>>>phically than you imply, and by ignoring this in your own pet subject,
>>>you don't realize what a complete idiot you look like by making such a
>>>deal about the exact same philosophical questions that arise in evolu-
>>>tion.  Which is why I say, that as a historian, you're an idiot.
>
>>	Actually, I probably understand a bit more about the core issues
>>than you are giving me credit for. But let's continue...
>
>So answer the question.  How *do* we know anything about Julius Caesar?

	I hope you find my reply interesting, even if you don't
agree: 

	* The archaelogical record is not definitive, because it is
	not self-explanatory. Just because we see Caesar's face on a
	coin does not explain who he was or why his face was on the coin.
	We have to know more. Knowledge of Latin is essential to
	"break the code". Once we have translated what is on the
	coin, there are more questions than answers, because now we
	know more what to ask.

	* The primary sources are helpful, but scanty. Caesar's 
	own writings, assuming that we choose to accept them as
	such, tell us about the events of his life, to be sure -
	but more importantly, they tell us worlds about the man
	himself - his attitudes, beliefs, general modes of thought.
	Off the subject, but I recently bought Ulysses Grant's
	autobiography. Even self-serving text of this sort is
	worth the entire works of Douglass Southall Freeman, if
	read with the proper perspective, because we see what
	Grant himself thought was important to tell.

	* But the secondary sources are the real clincher. We 
	know a good deal about Caesar because, for hundreds and
	hundreds of years, men considered it important to remember
	what Caesar did. Individual facts may become distorted, but,
	unless a major attempt is made to distort the picture, 
	we get at least a silhouette of Caesar - perhaps a one
	dimensional view, but better than none, and of course, the
	more different views, the better, as long as the are not
	based on deliberate falsehood.

>Of course.  I said nothing about judgment.  I'm merely talking at the
>level of historical fact.  Was there a man named Julius Caesar, general
>and emperor of Rome 2000 years ago, assassinated by acquaintances?  Why
>should we believe this, just because we have a text that says so?  And
>coins with his bust?

	Quantity of facts does not equal quality of facts. 

	BTW, having read Colby's discussion of periods of mass
extinction, I would say that this is more definitively supportive
of your view than much of your own logic, since it does underscore
interdependency of different scientific disciplines, assuming the
piece parts are all okay. 

>
>>								 One of
>>our problems in examining ancient (and a good deal of not-so-ancient)
>>history is that we tend to make false analogies with the present.
>>We do so because one of the uses of history is as a guide for current
>>actions. But without the appropriate aim-off, our historical theory
>>falls wide of the mark, even though there are few critics to challenge
>>our thinking...at least among our contemporaries, who have the same
>>"general perspective" as we do.
>
>It is not a false analogy that people were people doing people-like things.
>We may certainly misread "bread and circuses" as just another welfare
>program, for example, and misunderstand and misinterpret history (and
>welfare) as a consquence, but the overwhelming similarities we read into
>the historical record are enough to believe facts regarding the existence
>of the circuses, without having to worry that we are really dealing with
>complete aliens and have instead to rely on mere speculations regarding
>whether the circuses existed, since aliens, of course, would be borrowing
>our terminology in sometimes completely arbitrary manners.


	You really are going to hate me for this.

	What do we think of when we use the word "circus" ? Big Top.
Lots of clowns, animal shows, right ? In point of fact, there WERE no
such circuses in ancient Rome. "Circus" is nothing more than the Latin
word for circle, and the reason people went to the "circus" was to watch
chariots race around a track. WE are the aliens who borrowed the terminology,


>
>>				 Go find an old translation of Josephus
>>and look at the accompanying commentary, and I think you'll see what
>>I mean.
>
>I do know what you mean.  It's completely irrelevant to what I'm talking
>about.  Evolution is a historial fact, pretty much for the same reasons
>that Julius Caesar is.  Difficulties at the interpretation stage are a
>different issue, and certainly do not negate basic facticities.
>


	Facticities ? Is this another commonly used English word that I've
yet to encounter. BTW, I was not able to find "dendogram" in Websters.

	Hmmph. Back to the subject. "Evolution" is neither historical
(being primarily located temporally in prehistory), nor a "fact". 
Nonetheless, "Julius Caesar" is not a "fact", either. He was a human
being, and while we can use the noun form to make statements about him
(i.e. Julius Caesar existed), such statements are based factuallly on
other statements, which have to either to be proven or disproven.

	Another obvious assertion on my part which requires no belittling.

>>>So when someone comes at us with his theory that there was no Julius
>>>Caesar, and that the name was invented as folk etymology for a few
>>>words in our language, along with the documents to back it up, and
>>>the mountains of side evidence and secondary documents, and this
>>>someone can spew out any explanation to agree with his theory, and
>>>by the way, did you know the world was created 500 years ago? etc--we
>>>reject him and his theory out of hand.  The past was different, but
>>>not *that* different.
>
>>       That's interesting, because there is a school of biblical
>>criticism which maintains that there was no Jesus Christ, despite the
>>evidence to the contrary. These people claim to be both scientific,
>>and skeptical.
>
>There you go again, overwhelmed by someone saying he's "scientific".
>
>>	        And yet, such theorists indulge in a marvelous amount
>>of speculation to explain how Christ did not exist and could not have
>>existed. Most of these guys also manage to mess around with his name,
>>too.
>
>Personally, I'm a psilanthropist, and think these folks you mention are
>idiots.  I chose the other JC for a reason.

	So did I. But I'd be curious to know the reason. :)

>
>>>And it's pretty much the same with evolution.  The primary evidence for
>>>evolution is copies of copies of copies etc from the past.  Today's
>>>genes are a rich written record brought down from the past.  And yes,
>>>there are numerous textual difficulties.  We know that.  What of it?
>>>Artifacts from the past help to flesh out the record.  And most of all,
>>>our understanding is based on the exact same kind of network of evidence.
>>>The past was different, but not *that* different.  Life was life then,
>>>doing life-like things.  And the overwhelming multitude of overlapping
>>>and agreeing evidence on this point is why we can call evolution fact.
>
>>	True students of history get to the point where the data
>>overwhelms them.
>
>Exactly.  Could you care to state a point at which the data concerning
>the existence of Julius Caesar, and the broad outline of his career,
>becomes overwhelming?  And more importantly, why?


	Here you go again, agreeing with me. Not wanting to get 
excessively embroiled in YOUR leading question, I would simply
say that what happens in studying Caesar is that we run through
the standard sources, think we know him well (ambitous, ruthless,
power-hungry, great military tactician, clever politician, all 
that "stuff") - then run across something, an incident, an anecdote,
just some little insignificant data point THAT DOESN'T FIT. 
Scientifically speaking, we HAVE to resolve it. We either dismiss 
the data as irrelevant, or incorrect. Worst case, we decide to 
change our theory - so we deconstruct the theory piece by piece
(usually as little as possible) and try to put a new one together.
But now we have two theories - the one we've "disproven" and the one
we've "proven". But eventually, we hit another data point, and another,
and another. After awhile we have a patchwork theory in which we can 
barely recognize the human being we thought we once "knew", and have to
reconceptualize almost from scratch.

	Not knowing the specific answer you're looking for, I suppose some of
this applies to Caesar.

>
>>		 It all seemed much simpler in high school, when the
>>textbook said that A was caused by B, and that was all they needed to know.
>
>Certainly the high school text book version of history, whether natural
>or human, leaves out the messy nature and philosophical issues behind
>the raw data.  What of it?

	There is an article by Gould which I think worth quoting on this
subject, something about "Fox Terrier Clones". I think it might be 
worthwhile to post the relevant parts of it out in the very near future.


	Bill R.


	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any 
government agency."
-- 
Bill R.
Newsgroups: talk.origins