Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Wyz_sub10 · 03-03-2003, 06:56 AM

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.

Muad'Dib · 03-03-2003, 09:58 AM

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

Wyz_sub10 · 03-03-2003, 10:42 AM

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.

Shake · 03-03-2003, 11:14 AM

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.

Bumble Bee Tuna · 03-03-2003, 02:17 PM

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

03-03-2003, 02:24 PM

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

Jesse · 03-03-2003, 02:40 PM

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.

Wyz_sub10 · 03-03-2003, 03:37 PM

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.

Muad'Dib · 03-04-2003, 03:37 PM

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?

Wyz_sub10 · 03-05-2003, 06:41 AM

Bede,

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

03-03-2003, 06:56 AM	#1
Wyz_sub10 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the land of two boys and no sleep. Posts: 9,890	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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-03-2003, 09:58 AM	#2
Muad'Dib Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 845	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

03-03-2003, 10:42 AM	#3
Wyz_sub10 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the land of two boys and no sleep. Posts: 9,890	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.

03-03-2003, 11:14 AM	#4
Shake Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Folding@Home in upstate NY Posts: 14,394	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.

03-03-2003, 02:17 PM	#5
Bumble Bee Tuna Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Middletown, CT Posts: 7,333	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

03-03-2003, 02:24 PM	#6
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	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

03-03-2003, 02:40 PM	#7
Jesse Moderator - Science Discussions Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Providence, RI, USA Posts: 9,908	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.

03-05-2003, 06:41 AM	#10
Wyz_sub10 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the land of two boys and no sleep. Posts: 9,890	Bede, No comment on Fred Hoyle's belief statements? I thought you might find that interesting, no?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.