Re: To John Harshman -- re Isochrons


Zoe wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 04:47:56 GMT, rmcbane <rmcbane@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

snip>

Like the much-touted nested hierarchy, the layering is ordered
according to a preconceived idea of how things should be.

Not at all.

Think about this for a moment. What is actually happening is that you
are allowing a preconceived idea to interfere with unbiased, logical
interpretation of data. And here I'm not using logical in the formal
sense, just in the pattern-of-connections sense.

Consider the nature of an "explanation." It has changed with the advent
of scientific methodology. It used to be that an explanation, even
offered as empirical reasoning, was not disqualified on the basis of
invoking non-natural causation. As enough naturalistic rationale got
mixed in with the non-natural inferences, this served humanity
well-enough for a long period of time.

But our scientific and technological leaps forward in the last few
centuries have come, in no small measure, as a result of our
understanding that expunging from an explanatory mindset all references
to non-testable phenomena greatly enhances the efficacy of the process.

You are committed to a set of beliefs than anchor your morality and
spirituality. Your mistake is in allowing them to anchor your
rationality as well. When we look at the data, whether for the
heirarchy or geological stratification, it is the absence, not
presence, of a preconceived idea that prompts the interpretations. Note
that these interpretations are arrived at by scientists of all
theological dispositions precisely because they are able to separate
their beliefs from their ability to observe and reason.

When looked at without preconceived ideas, the pattern of phylogenetic
connections forces an obvious conclusion - common descent. And when
similarly evaluated the interpretation of stratification forces a
similarly logical evaluation - that the pattern of connections actually
means what it appears to mean.

It is your preconceived ideas that obligate you to jump over the common
sensical interpretation of data and conclude that many, many people who
know much, much more than you have all fooled themselves. Ockham's
Razor should cause you to at least consider the folly of this approach.

If you were not determined to diminish your theology by so mercilessly
forcing empirical explanations from it you would not have this problem.

Robert

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Case for a Designer
    ... the real question is how the evidence should be interpreted. ... will seek to apply a different interpretation. ... Are you saying that so long as chance is available as the explanation ... Scientists like to think they are the *only* people prepared to accept ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Wading into the deep end of the pool
    ... that the data *can't* be interpreted to show a 6000 year-old Earth. ... individual people color their interpretation of the data, ... scientists a few centuries ago were European, ... explanation to the consensus view is equivalent to destroying all the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A Typical Conversation With Charles Beauchamp
    ... That is called faith. ... scientists are telling you isn't any better then my faith. ... I addressed it directly interpretation free in the very first reply I made ... life of earth time line that cannot be derived from the biblical texts ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Seeking Evolutionists explanation of "observed" evolution
    ... Ray, you are aware, are you not, that surnames are fairly late introduction, coming into use about the end of the Middle Ages. ... Therefore the existence of the surname "Jacobson" is the result of parents in the late middle ages naming their sons "Jacob" after the Biblical patriarch, not evidence that the patriarch actually existed. ... You stated that the right interpretation of the ... Why are many of these scientists devoutly religious, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Integers and standard
    ... or any other convenient bit pattern for the unspecified bits. ... I don't think anyone would find interpreting Z'F' as anything other than equivalent to Z'0000000F' an acceptable interpretation. ... Permitting BOZ in these intrinsics has solved nothing. ... is processor dependent." ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)