FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-03-2003, 06:56 AM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the land of two boys and no sleep.
Posts: 9,890
Unhappy Christians and bad mathmatics - Take 2

Sorry all. I was removing a double-post and I accidentally deleted the thread (they were all tagged 'delete').

I had just finished responding to Bede's post on Hoyle's beliefs. I won't repeat it (obviously) but I'm sorry for the error - it was an interesting discussion.
Wyz_sub10 is offline  
Old 03-03-2003, 09:58 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 845
Default

It's okay, I did that once or twice when I was a mod. Pretty embarrassing, isn't it?

IIRC, here's the basic [paraphrased] flow of the thread. I remember the later posts better than the earlier ones...

Initial post: Creationists misuse biology. Is it possible to similarly misuse mathematics?

Subsequent posts: Sure--bad statistics, e.g. creationists' use of 747 from junkyard tornado; equivocation of mean with median.

Lobstrosity: Generalized result to other forms of science. Biology easy to fudge, chemistry a little harder, physics you have to be darn good, and math is near impossible. Relatively easy to find flaws in math proofs, while biology takes a lot of work from a lot of people.

Me: anyone can misuse applied math regardless of religious orientation, but pure math is not likely to be affected by anyone because its results have no religious implications.

Bede: BTW, 747 from junkyard tornado analogy is originally from atheist Fred Hoyle. Make sure your analogies support your cause. Hoyle an example of how being an atheist can lead you to get your science wrong.

Vinnie: (that was the easiest to remember!)

Hope this helps,
Muad'Dib
Muad'Dib is offline  
Old 03-03-2003, 10:42 AM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the land of two boys and no sleep.
Posts: 9,890
Default



Perfect! Thanks!

Let me add my last thoughts: Hoyle rejected the Big Bang because it conflicted with his developed theory, not because he was an atheist.

The 747 quote is incompatible with what else is being said about Hoyle. His 747 quote indicates his belief that life *is* purposeful.

In fact, Hoyle did believe in a "higher power", just not god per se.

Bede's connection between atheism and science is nonsense.

Now we can dive in again.
Wyz_sub10 is offline  
Old 03-03-2003, 11:14 AM   #4
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Folding@Home in upstate NY
Posts: 14,394
Exclamation

Thanks, Wyz_sub10! I was going to ask if it was that Fred Hoyle (not that I know of any others). Since I'm reading this book, and it introduced me to Hoyle's cosmological ideas.

Actually, I tried to post a question about that, but then my internet connection crapped out, and II kept hanging up.
Shake is offline  
Old 03-03-2003, 02:17 PM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middletown, CT
Posts: 7,333
Talking

Ugh. I once deleted a guy's post I was trying to "reply-with-quote". I accidentally did "edit" and proceeded to delete all of his writing after I wrote my stuff out. So I posted under his name, effectively. And the funny thing was despite signing it "-B" and completely going against anything the cretinist believed, some people still thought it was his post.
Yes, I have nothing to actually contribute to the discussion

-B
Bumble Bee Tuna is offline  
Old 03-03-2003, 02:24 PM   #6
Bede
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hello Wyz,

You've just committed the no true scotsman fallacy. Well done. Nice to see such a good example.

Hoyle's steady state theory was a result of his rejection of the BB. As he couldn't handle the metaphysical implications he had to come up with another theory. And he was a real atheist - he didn't believe in God.

Anyway, we all have beliefs and they can all screw up our objectivity. This is the case for atheists and theists. It is just ironic that the only example of beliefs corrupting maths mentioned so far came from an atheist.

I have another, though, so never fear. It is said that Pythagoras rejected the existance of irrational numbers (like root 2), even after they had been proven to exist, as they screwed up his belief system. Ok, so he wasn't a theist either but I am sure that there do exist examples of theism buggering up the maths.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason
 
Old 03-03-2003, 02:40 PM   #7
Moderator - Science Discussions
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Providence, RI, USA
Posts: 9,908
Default

It would only be a "no true scotsman fallacy" if he had said something like, "no atheists are guilty of corrupting mathematics." Did he ever make any such claim on the old thread?

I tend to agree that Hoyle's atheism was partially responsible for his rejection of the Big Bang, but his disbelief in evolution and abiogenesis were probably due to other beliefs which he held. Likewise, I don't see any reason why it was Pythagoras' atheism specifically that would lead him to reject irrational numbers--it probably had more to do with certain metaphysical views about numbers. In contrast, there is a pretty direct connection with the religious belief system of fundamentalists and their tendency to use bad mathematical arguments similar to Hoyle's to try to disprove abiogenesis or evolution.
Jesse is offline  
Old 03-03-2003, 03:37 PM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the land of two boys and no sleep.
Posts: 9,890
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Bede
Hello Wyz,
You've just committed the no true scotsman fallacy. Well done. Nice to see such a good example.
I take it you are responding to my inference that Hoyle was not a "real" atheist.

I didn't say he wasn't an atheist. I said that, despite not believing in 'god', he did believe in a 'higher power'.

When one attributes something to plan or purpose, one 'creates' a higher power. Hoyle not wanting to call it god or deciding that a non-sentient 'plan' was responsible for how the universe unfolded is his prerogative. But he certainly believed *something* was at work to direct mankind. Perhaps he could be described as an atheist in the way that a Buddhist is atheist.

Hi atheism, as a whole, is something I have not seen verbalized anywhere except on Christian sites quoting his '747' mathematics. (Even then, he is mostly described as an "anti-theist", whatever that means exactly - perhaps they prefer the softer terminology, him being an ally and all).

Quote:
Bede: And he was a real atheist - he didn't believe in God.
Well, this seems at odds slightly with his words here:

Quote:
Would you not say to yourself, 'Some super- calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule.' Of course you would . . .. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.
source: http://www.origins.org/articles/ging...turaltheo.html


Quote:
Bede: Hoyle's steady state theory was a result of his rejection of the BB. As he couldn't handle the metaphysical implications he had to come up with another theory.
I wish you could provide some impartial backup to this. I have no problem accepting that Hoyle was discomforted by a 'beginning', but what I have read suggests it was the violation of physics and the 'creation' of time and space that was discomforting.

I have never read Hoyle suggesting that the *reason* for his theory was to circumvent the god issue. Yes, he asked "who created god?", but that is a far cry from developing a theory *to avoid acknowledging god*.

The only mentions of this "purpose" come from Christian sites. Case in point:

THE CASE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD PART I

Quote:
The most comfortable position for the person who does not believe in God is the idea that the Universe is eternal, because it avoids the problem of a beginning or ending, and thus the need for any first cause such as God. In fact, it was to avoid just such a problem that evolutionists Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi, and Fred Hoyle developed the Steady State Theory.
Hoyle, of course was not an "evolutionist" by any definition.

Another quote says:

Quote:
the Steady State Theory was doomed to failure, in part, because it violated one of the most fundamental laws of sciencethe first law of thermodynamics (also referred to as the law of the conservation of matter and/or energy), which states that neither matter nor energy may be created or destroyed in nature.
The SST does exactly the opposite, actually. The Big Bang is what *appears* to violate this, so I'll assume the website owner's PhD wasn't in physics. (sorry...off-topic, but I couldn't resist noting that bit)

.....back to Hoyle.

If you could source where Hoyle developed this theory for fear of acknowledging god, I'd love to see it.

On every site I searched for on Hoyle and his beliefs (about 25-30), the *only* ones that mentioned this aim were Christian ones.

Quote:
Bede: Anyway, we all have beliefs and they can all screw up our objectivity. This is the case for atheists and theists. It is just ironic that the only example of beliefs corrupting maths mentioned so far came from an atheist.
I don't doubt that beliefs hinder our objectivity. If you are 'rooting' for a given outcome, you will look at that outcome with bias, to see what you want to see.

My point, though, is that atheism doesn't cloud judgement in the way you imply. It can't unless it lends proof to god or against 'no god'.

The majority of the scientific community is atheist, and lo and behold, they accept the Big Bang with no disclaimers, caveats or provisos.

A Christian has a story they have to protect - the bible. The atheist has no such story to protect. The chance for objectivity to be distorted is not equal.

Quote:
Bede: I have another, though, so never fear. It is said that Pythagoras rejected the existance of irrational numbers (like root 2), even after they had been proven to exist, as they screwed up his belief system. Ok, so he wasn't a theist either but I am sure that there do exist examples of theism buggering up the maths.
Yours
Bede
No doubt. I think any bias is going to affect objectivity. Homeopathy, anyone? But I can't agree with you inference that scientists have an "atheistic" approach to their findings. I don't even know what this would mean.
Wyz_sub10 is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 03:37 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 845
Question

Quote:
Originally posted by Bede
Hello Wyz,
It is just ironic that the only example of beliefs corrupting maths mentioned so far came from an atheist.
Hi Bede,

Did Woodmorappe's confusion of the mean and median in his Noah's Ark feasibility study not count?
Muad'Dib is offline  
Old 03-05-2003, 06:41 AM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the land of two boys and no sleep.
Posts: 9,890
Default

Bede,

No comment on Fred Hoyle's belief statements? I thought you might find that interesting, no?
Wyz_sub10 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:19 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.