AFA Forums This was offered up as evidence
 Register FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

#11
25th September 2017, 07:13 PM
 pipbarber AFA Member Join Date: Aug 2015 Location: Melbourne Posts: 3,129
Re: This was offered up as evidence

Quote:
 hackenslash said Even if you take it as read that there was some sort of miraculous recovery, there's a pernicious logical fallacy underlying the assumption that Jesus is to blame. The name for this fallacy is 'affirming the consequent'. To expose this, propositional calculus is your friend: $$P \rightarrow Q, Q \therefore P$$ For a syllogistic example: 1. All men are mortal 2. Socrates was mortal C: Therefore, Socrates was a man One might think that looks OK, right until I tell you that Socrates was my neighbour's cat, who was run over last week (I made that up; the cat was called Heidegger). Point is, men aren't the only things that are mortal, and this conclusion discounts all of them In the case of the apologist, they're overlooking all sorts of not only possible but plausible explanations and running with their preferred conclusion, which can't even be said to be possible.
I'm sorry for your cat, especially with such a name. There is tragedy in pets.
__________________
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
 The Irreverent Mr Black, Blue Lightning, hackenslash laughed at this post
#12
26th September 2017, 02:20 AM
 hackenslash Trust me, I'm not a doctor. Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: People's Republic of Mancunia, Antipodes Posts: 1,606
Re: This was offered up as evidence

There was no such cat, in reality. Much as is probably true of the original Socrates, he was a didactic invention.
__________________

 The Irreverent Mr Black, DanDare laughed at this post
#13
27th September 2017, 09:54 AM
 Darwinsbulldog AFA Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Perth Posts: 19,041
Re: This was offered up as evidence

To be fair it is evidence, but of an incredibly poor type. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is only a fallacy when it is assumed to be true, especially without other corroborating evidence to suggest A caused B.

Indeed that is the reason for the fallacy in the first place, because B often follows A and is caused by A.

The main fault lies with not looking for other causal candidates, and settling for the highly dubious "divine" Jesus as the causal factor without question.

Indeed Classical Physics used Post hoc ergo propter hoc and served us generally quite well for thousands of years. Take a beam of light striking a mirror: "The angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection" True enough as a rule of thumb, but if quantum mechanics is true, things are not quite that simple.

The path of a photon behaves more like a path integral formulation than what was imagined in classical optics:-

Quote:
 The path integral formulation of quantum mechanics is a description of quantum theory that ..... The result is a sum over paths with a phase, which is the quantum action. ... amplitude (corresponding to the classical correlation function) as a weighted sum of all possible histories of the system from the initial to the final state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation

__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.

Last edited by Darwinsbulldog; 27th September 2017 at 09:56 AM.
#14
27th September 2017, 10:23 AM
 The Irreverent Mr Black Everyone Belongs Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Toontown Posts: 6,631
Re: This was offered up as evidence

Quote:
 Darwinsbulldog said To be fair it is evidence, but of an incredibly poor type. El Snippo
Prof Pupp, I wouldn't actually let the tale grace itself with the title "evidence". Sometimes it's all theatre.

Let me tell you how a "miracle" happened to me:
Quote:
__________________
EJB

Ludwig Boltzman, who spent much of his life studying statistical mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand.
Paul Ehrenfest, carrying on the work, died similarly in 1933.
Now it is our turn to study statistical mechanics.
Perhaps it will be wise to approach the subject cautiously.
(Opening lines of "States of Matter", by D.L. Goodstein).

 Darwinsbulldog, Strato liked this post
#15
27th September 2017, 11:28 AM
Re: This was offered up as evidence

And to this day your legs are of the same length, Praise the Lord.
__________________
The meaning of your life, is what you choose to make it.
 The Irreverent Mr Black laughed at this post
#16
27th September 2017, 11:30 AM
 The Irreverent Mr Black Everyone Belongs Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Toontown Posts: 6,631
Re: This was offered up as evidence

Quote:
 bruce1937 said And to this day your legs are of the same length, Praise the Lord.
Like David Byrne put it... The same as it ever was, the same as it ever was.

The Lord can get fucked: or if he doesn't show up, his little messengers can get fucked as proxies.
__________________
EJB

Ludwig Boltzman, who spent much of his life studying statistical mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand.
Paul Ehrenfest, carrying on the work, died similarly in 1933.
Now it is our turn to study statistical mechanics.
Perhaps it will be wise to approach the subject cautiously.
(Opening lines of "States of Matter", by D.L. Goodstein).

Last edited by The Irreverent Mr Black; 27th September 2017 at 11:33 AM.
#17
27th September 2017, 12:15 PM
 Darwinsbulldog AFA Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Perth Posts: 19,041
Re: This was offered up as evidence

Quote:
 The Irreverent Mr Black said Prof Pupp, I wouldn't actually let the tale grace itself with the title "evidence". Sometimes it's all theatre. Let me tell you how a "miracle" happened to me:
Sure, but that was not my point. Science [as the pup understands it] is not to reject any tale, however outlandish or absurd, on an a priori basis. If I used that method, I would reject quantum mechanics along with fairies and UFOs.

We are story-telling creatures, and these stories cover many genre, and a spectrum of deliberate or unconscious motivations. Science is one story-telling system, and the various religious narratives another. Science proceeds with the method of trying to not have any a priori assumptions, but religious narratives [even when sincere] do the opposite.

So my attitude is not how outlandish a tale may be, but what are the a priori assumptions and can I destructively test the narrative?

Now is a story a form of evidence? I think yes, but for obvious reasons most stories of this type raise a red flag or two, which soon puts us into debunking mode.

Then we can accept those stories which seem to survive the debunking process as probably true. At least in a probational sense, subject always to further confirmation or invalidation.

Like it or not, those unfortunate souls who choose to regard myth as evidence need to be weaned off those types of mental habits, which mostly involve jumping to conclusions.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is not an absurd strategy, so long as it is not the only game in town. Of course, it is particularly deadly to reason when looking for ultimate causes [eg like a god-creator] but in terms of proximal causes [note the plural] it is a reasonable rule of thumb, [IMHO]. Which is probably why many people over-use it, and indeed abuse it, to the detriment of "truth".

I don't want to over-sell this, but it is in this way that I try to keep an open mind.

Science [again as I understand it] does not need to be realistic. Indeed, I think being reality-"agnostic" is the very core of science.

We can leave claims of reality to the clerics.
__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.
 The Irreverent Mr Black, Strato thanked this post
#18
27th September 2017, 09:47 PM
 DanDare Religion or Reality, choose... Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Posts: 7,485
Re: This was offered up as evidence

So the conclusion is obvious. It was the flying spaghetti monster, once again filling in for the absent Jesus, in between making new midgets.
__________________
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government".
-Thomas Jefferson

Burden of proof is the obligation on somebody presenting a claim to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant). Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing "side" to show the evidence presented is not adequate. If claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true.

History isn't written by the victors. It's written by the people with the time machines.
 hackenslash laughed at this post

 Bookmarks