Doubting Didymus

Actually, (and kind of surprisingly) Vanderzydens use of quotes is not dishonest. I was aware of this when he first deigned to defend himself in the libel thread.

The thing is, Van actually believes that the problems with ancient ancestral phylogeny apply to animals and plants. I remain in conversation with him because of points about data such as this, that vanderzyden should sooner or later be able to see for himself.

There is a thread about this in lifestyle and support called 'the eternal blues'. I never met eternal, but his comments about bulls were most amusing.

Nat

DD,

I see your point, but I really have lost the small amount of respect that I would give to the guy just for being human due to his continue use of bnoxious tactics. Plus, being a physicist (or at least someone trained as one), I was particularly disturbed by some of his more innane assertions (examples: that theoretical physicists don't employ methodological naturalism). Further, his inability to support any of his ridiculuous assertions, yet having the gall to demand it from others shows a disturbing lack of argumentative decorum. I know that may sound harsh, but hypocricy really pisses me off.

Cheers

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Nat ]</p>

Skeptical

Vander, are you going to address the question I asked you in my last post? (a question I have now asked several times by the way in different posts)

Here are a few reposts:

"I _have_ tried to see your point, you just have continued to ignore my request. Show me how you know the difference between non-empirical "knowledge" and something which might be just an error or mistake. Show me, I'll consider it."

And also:

"Actually no, since you haven't presented the one thing that might change my mind: a detailed example of how one differentiates between non-empirical "knowledge" and opinion, error, etc."

So, can you please provide your methodology for differentiating between non-empirical knowledge and things which might just be cognitive error?

Blinn

Heh, I was thinking the same thing that wade-w & Happy Wonderer posted above when I read this.

Vanderzyden, I would like you to clarify a couple of points. You left the
<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001305&p=12" target="_blank">Chromosome Thread</a> rather abruptly, from my viewpoint. Is this because the last nail in the coffin was pounded, so to speak? That is, your argument was to deny the fact of chromosome fusion, but you were shown unequivocally to be wrong. Given that, do you still doubt the validity of the apparent chromosome fusion on other grounds?

Secondly, you have for the most part ignored this <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001356" target="_blank">thread</a> on the urate oxidase gene. Your few posts requested corroborating studies, suggesting that you doubt this is the actual nucleotide sequence? Isn't that a pretty weak angle? When you buy milk at the grocery store, do you ask the cashier for references that corroborate the Nutrition Facts printed on the container? Do you ask the gas station attendant for references corroborating the octane content of the gasoline you are purchasing? My point is, these are diversionary tactics that you use to avoid answering the immediate question at hand. We can give the references to you, but you simply ignore them and go off on another tangent then. Do you really think we're that stupid? You're simply reinforcing your troll status.

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Zetek ]</p>

KnightWhoSaysNi

Vander,

Just to examine this point for a minute, mathematically, the degree of confidence here that the independent morphological and molecular trees agree is pretty freakin' huge with a p-value like 1x10^-41.

Grab your Monopoly or Risk game and take out a single die. Now roll the die 53 times and record the results. What did you get? Did you roll a '6' each consecutive time? The degree of confidence I have that you did not get a '6' for all 53 rolls is the same level of confidence I have that the similarities between morphological and molecular trees are not by chance alone.

Now am I guilty of committing "naturalistic dogmatism" in assuming that you didn't roll all sixes 53 times straight? I may not have "absolute certainty" but I'm willing to take a "leap of faith" that you didn't.

I happen to have a die handy. Let's try it out....

Darn! I rolled a one. Oh well.

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>

Vanderzyden

Skeptical

Yes, the delay in my response to you is due to my resolve in the attempt to get traction in our discussion. I have given this substantial thought, and have prepared severals small drafts in anticipation of how you respond to this post. It seems as though we continue to talk (write) past one another.

First, a clarification. In a previous post you made a complaint:

It is not my intent to put words in your mouth. I am not lying, or attempting to ridicule. Please accept my apologies for not being more explicit, and for the unintentional offense. If you read my last sentence, you will see that I am reiterating what I've said before: you are not demonstrating that the "mind is empirical". In fact, you are imply in your response here that knowledge of the mind is indeed non-empirical.

Let me try again, carefully. Back on page 6, you summary your inquiry as follows:

(emphasis mine)

I don't think you have captured my agreement well, but let's set that aside for the moment. What I have been emphasizing is that you have an example of a "non-empirical toolset" in your very own mind. You refuse to admit this directly, though you have said it implicitly:

(emphasis mine)

Notice that, by use of the word "reasonable", you equate knowledge of the control of your own mind with the knowledge that other people have minds. If it is not knowledge, then what is it? Most importantly, what I take from this is that you agree that your mind and other minds are non-empirical. But you don't say how it is that you can "know" your own mind. You do indicate that it is "reasonable" to conclude that "we are in control of our own minds", but you stop short of saying how you reach this conclusion. Are you saying then, that you possess knowledge by such reasoning?

Now, we must be clear on what you mean by empirical. So here is your definition:

By your definition then, non-empirical necessarily means that which is indetectable by the five senses.

You have also indicated that anything that may be called knowledge must be obtained by empirical means:

I would insist that for "all practical purposes" you know that your wife has a mind, since you know that she is a person, just as you are a person. Persons have minds. Anyway, you are surely saying that knowledge must be detectable by other people. But then, does that mean that you yourself do not possess knowledge, say, of your mind? Because your mind is not directly verifiable by others, you cannot claim knowledge of your own mind. No, no. I don't think this is what you are saying. But you can see the problem beginning to present itself.

At other times, you employ the terminology of experience:

You do admit that you experience your mind, but (again) you do not indicate how you do so. Please tell me by what means you have experienced your mind. Note that I want to focus presently on the experience of your mind, not experience of God or Satan. Let's deal first with the mind now; we can discuss other non-empirical entities later. OK, then. By the term experience, I take it that you mean that you are aware of your mind and that you have knowledge of it. If this is incorrect, then please tell me what is meant by the term experience.

Perhaps you can now see the problem. You have given a definition of empirical, and you also say that you experience your mind. Then, you say that knowledge must be empirically verifiable. But knowledge of the existence of your mind is not verifiable on the definition that you have given. You cannot detect your mind empirically, and yet you insist that you have knowledge of your mind. Please help me to understand: How have you obtained this knowledge, if all knowledge must be empirically verifiable?

Now, your latest request is:

Yes, I can continue with the example I've been using, knowledge of the mind. I know that my mind exists. I know that I have thoughts. I know that my thoughts cause things. My knowledge concerning my own mind is non-empirical. It is indeed knowledge, though it is obtained by non-empirical means. It is not detectable by any of the five senses, and yet I can still know my mind and the thoughts it contains. In addition, I may infer that other minds exists. This, too, counts as knowledge.

I'm not sure what you mean precisely by "cognitive error", but an example might be to do arithmetic incorrectly. This is distinctly different from the knowledge I have concerning my mind, or the minds of others. Experience of my mind is not a cognitive error, for that would be to say that cognition, which is a major function of the mind, is itself an error. I would have to say that an error of cognition would be an anomaly in a cognitive process.

Now, what you probably want in response to this question is the admission that empirically verifiable explanations are necessary to distinguish between non-empirical knowledge and cognitive error. But I will remind you again that experience or knowledge of the mind is (one example of ) non-empirically verifiable.

So, you have your example. Are you ready to move on to the concepts of God and Satan?

Vanderzyden

pz

If you try to play your evasive games by invoking inane superstitions like that, which is entirely inappropriate for the Evolution/Creation forum, I will slam this thread closed with great cheer and no qualms whatsoever.

Doubting Didymus

Actually, this whole topic is outside of the e/c debate. Empiricism, non-empical hypotheses, naturalistic biases. These are all topics either for science and skepticism or philosophy.

Unfortunately for those of you who are self sacrificing enough to become moderators of these mad mad mad mad forums, it also serves as the most recent incarnation of the 'vanderzyden all-purpose thread', incorporating such topics as phylogenetics and telomeric chromosome fusion. Not to mention those quotes that wont go away as well.

What's a moderator to do?

Doubting Didymus

I also heartily applaud your use of the word 'qualm'.

pz

Every morning, I open up the latest pages of all the Vanderzyden threads, and I skim through them very quickly. Then I take a shower, brush my teeth, and spit vigorously.

It seems to help a little bit. At least the twitching and other tics are under control.

Unfortunately, it does nothing to hinder my mind's progressive slide into a bleaker, blacker, more cynical view of humanity. At least I can console myself by telling myself that people aren't getting stupider, I'm just acquiring a more accurate view of reality.