Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 01-02-2002, 09:16 AM

Thank U for responding RW
RW: I can’t verify the truth of his training but have no reason to doubt my dad’s word and Lad was indeed very intelligent and obedient. I also can’t say with certainty that he had never had any previous experience with bees. Oh…and dad didn’t buy him, he was given to me.

jaliet : So we can say its possible that it had some previous experience with wasps and thus acted as it did? In any case, a dogs sense of smell, sight is way beyond that of a 7 year old. Dogs can tell the difference between adults and 7 year olds. It was taking care of you as would any other well trained dog do to a 7 year old boy.

jaliet :If you came to know that your dog had an experience with hornets, would you dismiss the idea of divine intervention in that event?

Rw: Not at all. It’s one thing to recognize a danger, and another to recognize that danger is also applicable to another dominant species,
many a story has been told about dogs rescuing babies from burning houses, so nothing extremely unique in this aspect
.. and quite another to do so in such a small time frame and devise a means of prevention all in one moments notice.
Are u saying some dogs would have taken more time to think of a way to stop you? Are you saying thate was the most efficient means of prevention any dog could devise? As you said, you could still have sidestepped and proceeded. What if you got terrified and did something worse than stand still?
...Those woods were very thick and Lad was only ten or so feet out front of me when the experience occurred. Even if he had previous recollection of the location of that hive he could have turned me from a collision course with it much sooner than to wait until I was within a few feet of it. That was simply because he too had to be close enough to "know" there was danger at that spot.

Rw: I am well aware that animals have complicated survival instincts, especially for their young, but I wasn’t a pup and Lad was a male dog. You are saying I gave a false analogy? Dogs do rescue human babies from burning buildings - or are u saying that such dogs mistake babies for their pups?

Rw: I suppose he could have knocked me down or somehow used his body to deflect my trajectory and he was, in fact, standing in a position to do so, such that I would have had to run over him to have collided with the hive.
He could have bit your cloth and dragged u away. You are trying to make the actions of the dog seem so incredible. It was a trained dog for heavens sake! what was it supposed to do?

rw: I’m fairly certain that he wouldn’t have buried anything that far from the house. He wasn’t in the habit of wandering off and I really can’t recall an instance of him burying anything although this is a common canine trait.
Fairly certain...I like that.
He was a perfect farm dog. I don’t think or see where this had any bearing on my interpretation of the experience.
What I am driving at is: is it possible that he did what he did because he was a well-trained dog? Dont you believe that there are speacial dogs? If not, are you saying no credit goes to the dog and all credit goes to God for intervening? what is the role of the dog in the scenario? didnt his strong sense of smell and training play any part? Or is it God, God, God pasted all over the event? Does some credit go to the Dog? If so, which part of the credit goes to God?
God could have used one of the hornets to accomplish the same end by sending it as an advance attack to warn me of their presence.
But you dont know that
The point is, I was prevented, by an animal, from a potentially fatal collision with a hive of bees. Like said before by many, nothing is unique in a dog saving the child of man, or even man himself, from danger
The time frame in which all of this occurred is critical. I wasn’t walking or jogging but running furiously in my imagined battle with aliens.By your own admission, he should have done it earlier, he saved u just in the nich of time. He saved u when he could, its not like he timed it.
If you are asking me why I don’t just interpret the experience as a case of good fortune, I haven’t ruled that out
Thank you so much
...entirely but I happen to have been there and know there were two many consequential factors whose ramifications make chance or luck seem untenable as an explanation.We will tackle these factors shortly
Had my dog simply cut across in front of me tripping me up you might have a better case for luck, but his actions were deliberate and forceful and successful.
So if the Dog failed to stop you there would be no case of God intervening? Is that what you are saying? that God intervened because it "worked"?
His actions were merely successful because you complied, as would many 7 yr olds, but not all would comply.
Why would God intervene for you while millions of others die of Starvation, floods, earthquakes all over the world? Are you of the opinion that for some reason, God feels your life is more important that that of the rest?

Rw: I don’t know the answer to that. I am sure you dont. But how do you deal with that? How do you just dismiss other peoples misery and choose to believe you survived because you are special/ better than them? How do you deal with that?
Gotta go now

madmax2976 · 01-02-2002, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rainbow walking:


rw: I have a better way to put it: "What men HAVE found and do think they UNDERSTAND is the best evidence yet to the question, "How did God do that?"

Oh, that's how He dunnit!"

Which would be known as: The fallacy of begging the question. An argument in which the conclusion is assumed, directly or indirectly, in the premises for the argument.

If one is just going to assume the conclusion beforehand, there would be no need to offer an argument in the first place.

Furthermore, no "how" has been explained here at all. All we have is a story in which you are unable to offer any other explanation and in a bewildering twist of reasoning count this as evidence in favor of a deity. The Egyptians, Mayan, Aztecs, Vikings, Babylonians, Sumerians, and countless other tribal peoples engaged in the same type of reasoning many generations before you. I've yet to be shown why their (your) reasoning should be considered as having any weight to it.

rainbow walking · 01-02-2002, 12:57 PM

Thank U for responding RW

Rw: U�re welcome

jaliet : So we can say its possible that it had some previous experience with wasps and thus acted as it did?

Rw: Sure, anything is possible although I�m mystified as to what previous experience with wasps has to do with hornets.

Jaliet: In any case, a dogs sense of smell, sight is way beyond that of a 7 year old.

Rw: Sense of smell, yes. Sight is another issue since dogs are color blind. Certainly their night vision is superior but this incident didn�t occur at night. I�m also not so sure smell is a relevant issue here either. Do you have any evidence that hornets convey a particular odor that a dog would recognize as a sign of danger?

Jaliet: Dogs can tell the difference between adults and 7 year olds.

Rw: You would think so, yes, but again you haven�t supported this contention yet.

Jaliet: It was taking care of you as would any other well trained dog do to a 7 year old boy.

Rw: He was playing with me and being my companion. Any assertion that attempts to ascribe any more complex motive to his behavior must be supported.

Jaliet: many a story has been told about dogs rescuing babies from burning houses, so nothing extremely unique in this aspect.

Rw: Yes, babies crying profusely and fires raging out of control conveying the definite information to even the simplest creature that danger abounds. This is hardly an equivalent example. The sights, sounds and smell of a burning house are un-mistakable. Is there an equivalent odor, sight and sound to a beehive?

jaliet: Are u saying some dogs would have taken more time to think of a way to stop you? Are you saying that was the most efficient means of prevention any dog could devise? As you said, you could still have sidestepped and proceeded. What if you got terrified and did something worse than stand still?

Rw: I am saying even a human would have been hard pressed to conceive of a means to prevent me from colliding with that hive in the time frame allotted and in the way the entire situation un-folded. It all happened very quickly and smoothly without interruption. From the time I passed into the little clearing between the last tree and the tree in front of me containing the hive there was maybe two seconds to collision. I was running fast. Something I could do at that age. About the only thing an adult could have done were he to have been in front of me and to have spotted the danger would be to have thrown out his arms and caught me. My dog chose a highly peculiar and fortunate, (for me), time to display this unusual behavior, having no arms with which to catch me.

jaliet: That was simply because he too had to be close enough to "know" there was danger at that spot.

Rw: You assume a knowledge without substantiating the assumption. Do you have any relevant material that suggests dogs instinctually know bees are a danger?

Jaliet: You are saying I gave a false analogy?

Rw: Yes.

Jaliet: Dogs do rescue human babies from burning buildings - or are u saying that such dogs mistake babies for their pups?

Rw: Fire is quite a big difference from a beehive. Squalling, terrified babies are quite different from a 7 year old playing and making gunshot noises with his mouth. False analogy? You be the judge.

Jaliet: He could have bit your cloth and dragged u away. You are trying to make the actions of the dog seem so incredible.

Rw: I don�t have to try. You are trying to make them seem mundane. You must try harder.

Jaliet: It was a trained dog for heavens sake! what was it supposed to do?

Rw: Do you know of any animal trainer that intentionally trains dogs to recognize and prevent children from colliding with beehives? Your argument, as well as your tone, is taking a nosedive here.

Jaliet: Fairly certain...I like that.

Rw: Why?

jaliet: What I am driving at is: is it possible that he did what he did because he was a well-trained dog?

Rw: No. He wasn�t trained for such situations so it isn�t even remotely possible that he was drawing upon some learned behavior here. There isn�t even any reason to suspect he was acting in concert with a recognition that a beehive represented danger.

Jaliet: Dont you believe that there are speacial dogs?

Rw: I believe all dogs are unique and special. I currently own two dogs, three cats and three horses.

Jaliet: If not, are you saying no credit goes to the dog and all credit goes to God for intervening?

Rw: I hadn�t really thought of it in that sense. I just know my dog did something extremely unique, something I believe he was guided towards by a divine intervention.

Jaliet: what is the role of the dog in the scenario? didnt his strong sense of smell and training play any part?

Rw: Do hornets give off an odor? What type of training could have prepared him to recognize the danger?

Jaliet: Or is it God, God, God pasted all over the event? Does some credit go to the Dog? If so, which part of the credit goes to God?

Rw: Why does it matter so much to you?

rw earlier: God could have used one of the hornets to accomplish the same end by sending it as an advance attack to warn me of their presence.

jaliet: But you dont know that

rw: You asked me a speculative question so I gave you a speculative answer. Do you know that He couldn�t have?

jaliet: Like said before by many, nothing is unique in a dog saving the child of man, or even man himself, from danger

rw: This is true, unless the source of danger is very rare and unique, requiring a real stretch to allow it a natural occurrence ruling.

jaliet: By your own admission, he should have done it earlier, he saved u just in the nich of time. He saved u when he could, its not like he timed it.

Rw: No, you misunderstood. I said that if he had previous knowledge of the location of the hive he could have turned me before he did. I didn�t say he should have. I am showing that in a matter of seconds he stopped me in my tracks. I�m not saying he understood what he was doing or why. I�m only saying that had he not stopped me in my tracks when he did I would have collided with a hornets nest face first.

The only reason I am arguing as though he did understand what he was doing is because that is the only course a natural explanation can take other than just blind luck. I can�t say my dog even knew there was a hornets nest there. He didn�t appear to notice it. He wasn�t standing there staring at it or growling at it or showing any sign of acknowledging its existence. He was focused entirely on me.

rw earlier: If you are asking me why I don�t just interpret the experience as a case of good fortune, I haven�t ruled that out

jaliet: Thank you so much

rw earlier: ...entirely but I happen to have been there and know there were two many consequential factors whose ramifications make chance or luck seem untenable as an explanation.We will tackle these factors shortly
Had my dog simply cut across in front of me tripping me up you might have a better case for luck, but his actions were deliberate and forceful and successful.

jaliet: So if the Dog failed to stop you there would be no case of God intervening? Is that what you are saying? that God intervened because it "worked"?

rw: Not necessarily, no. If my dog had failed to stop me, and I survived the collision, and I recognized that he had tried to stop me I might have still attributed his efforts to God and his failure to my own inability to respond.

jaliet: His actions were merely successful because you complied, as would many 7 yr olds, but not all would comply.

Rw: You must first account for his actions before you attempt to diminish their significance. I screeched to a halt out of fear because he gave every indication of being about to attack me. My compliance, as you call it, was instinctual.

jaliet earlier: Why would God intervene for you while millions of others die of Starvation, floods, earthquakes all over the world? Are you of the opinion that for some reason, God feels your life is more important that that of the rest?

Rw earlier: I don�t know the answer to that.

Jaliet: I am sure you dont. But how do you deal with that? How do you just dismiss other peoples misery and choose to believe you survived because you are special/ better than them? How do you deal with that?

Rw: I don�t even think in those paradigms. Why should I? Do you think about every starving child every time you swallow a morsel of food? What is the purpose of this line of questioning? Why haven�t you responded to my questions? Is this going to be a one sided conversation where you do all the interrogation and I must dutifully answer every question? Why should I continue under such rude conditions?

jaliet: Gotta go now

rw: Not so fast�you haven�t run out of questions have you? When do I get a turn?

rainbow walking · 01-02-2002, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by madmax2976:
[QB]

Which would be known as: The fallacy of begging the question. An argument in which the conclusion is assumed, directly or indirectly, in the premises for the argument.

rw: No more than your conclusion that God didn't do it is assumed.

MM: If one is just going to assume the conclusion beforehand, there would be no need to offer an argument in the first place.

rw: What argument are we referring to here? I think we may be talking a cross purposes.

MM: Furthermore, no "how" has been explained here at all. All we have is a story in which you are unable to offer any other explanation and in a bewildering twist of reasoning count this as evidence in favor of a deity.

rw: Ah, I see, you are referring to my testimony while I was referring to scientific discovery in general. I make no claims to know how my dog was motivated to intervene when he did. Do you have any suggestions?

MM: The Egyptians, Mayan, Aztecs, Vikings, Babylonians, Sumerians, and countless other tribal peoples engaged in the same type of reasoning many generations before you. I've yet to be shown why their (your) reasoning should be considered as having any weight to it.

rw: Of course.

madmax2976 · 01-02-2002, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rainbow walking:
rw: No more than your conclusion that God didn't do it is assumed.

The difference being, and please correct me if I've gotten the purpose of your story mixed up, your the one who is making a claim that "God did it". I see no evidence that any deity exists, so it would be a bit erroneous for me to claim that a God didn't do it.

Quote:

rw: Ah, I see, you are referring to my testimony while I was referring to scientific discovery in general. I make no claims to know how my dog was motivated to intervene when he did. Do you have any suggestions?

Assuming I had a lack of "suggestions" to offer, would you consider this itself a valid indication that a deity exists?

Quote:

MM: The Egyptians, Mayan, Aztecs, Vikings, Babylonians, Sumerians, and countless other tribal peoples engaged in the same type of reasoning many generations before you. I've yet to be shown why their (your) reasoning should be considered as having any weight to it.

rw: Of course.

rainbow walking · 01-02-2002, 04:02 PM

MM: Assuming I had a lack of "suggestions" to offer, would you consider this itself a valid indication that a deity exists?

rw: The question is, would you consider your lack of suggestions to be a valid reason to exclude the possibility of divine intervention?

Ted Hoffman · 01-03-2002, 04:28 AM

First of all I am sorry I had to leave in a hurry, sorry for failing to answer your questions RW. Let me start with your earlier Qs.

I notice your continual reference to the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Is this your sectarian group of choice?
I am an atheist. When I was examining the xstian faith, the JWitnesses appeared to me to be the most logical in their interpretation of scriptures ,of course their obsessive, indeed morbid preoccupation with blood put me off, and their interpretation of the 144,000 people talked about in Revelation.
Are you a believer and if so how do you express your faith?
answered above

jaliet: Would you still believe even if there was no similar evidence/ experience occuring in your life? If not, what would be your reasons/ evidence for believing?

Rw: Yes I would. As I said at the outset of submitting this testimony, this was just one of many experiences I’ve had that convince me of a divine and personal God in my life.

You use the word - "in my life" NOT in "this world" - does that by any means imply that this God you talk about appears in the lives of individuals as opposed to appearing, and being present universally for everyone?

And would you crown this experience as one that was most significant than the rest? (I want to focus only on the important experience - one that would give one that leap of faith or the turning point in your life)

Have I had moments of doubt? Of course, some very intense moments.
And what would you be doubting sir?

Will I always hold to this degree of faith? I can’t say…I certainly hope my faith doesn’t diminish. I would prefer an increase.
You talk about faith - not conviction. Faith is trusting acceptance (some call it blind belief). Faith needs no reason, no proof. Why would your faith diminish? What would it take?
If you were convinced its not the best way to view life? or if new evidence showed that something else (and not God) intervened? How do you know its not the spirit of one of your forefathers?
If your faith is not grounded on logical evidence with rational explanations, then its true faith, if its based on your subjective experience, then its not faith. Because you were convinced by what you saw - you did not choose to just believe - you needed some event that would provide a basis for your belief - an explanation.

That brings me to my next question: Do you believe it is rational to believe that God intervened?
If it is indeed rational, are you applying a logical argument? What are your premises? are they backed by any evidence?
You know very well that the existence of God cannot be proved, yet you claim he exists, and he intervened. Which God intervened for you? Was it Jehovah? Allah? Yahweh? Krishna? Satan? a spirit of a dead person?

Do you admit that you have very little respect for dogs (and the things dogs are capable of) because you cannot give any credit to a dog that saved your life? I say this because you are basically saying it was an act of God, not an act of a dog(i.e. the dog was used as a "tool").

If I dropped a coin and it stood on its edge, we all know that is very unlikely (highly unprobable), if it happened, would it be logical for me to say God made it stand on its edge and not land on its side?
Do we attribute Gods intervention to your case just because Dogs are not supposed to know the danger that Hornets pose? Or do we attribute it to God because the dog "rescued" you spectacularly? Where do we draw the line between things that occur very rarely and things that require Gods intervention in order to occur?

How do you prove its a case of God intervening and not just an unlikely event happening? What is your basis for introducing God in the event that occured? Is it because you were the main chatacter? Or do we attribute all we cannot explain/ understand to God('s intervention)?

If someone spotted a python protecting a baby from a hungry hyena (instead of the snake swallowing the baby) - would you say God intervened - to save the baby?

now to your most recent response:

jaliet : So we can say its possible that it had some previous experience with wasps and thus acted as it did?

Rw: Sure, anything is possible although I’m mystified as to what previous experience with wasps has to do with hornets.
Dictionary definition of hornets is as below:

Hornet: hor�net [h�wrnt ] (plural hor�nets) noun
stinging wasp: a large social stinging wasp that builds large group nests underground or hanging from a tree. Family Vespidae

So a hornet is a wasp or a kind of a wasp. What do you think hornets are? Maybe thats our problem here.

jaliet: In any case, a dogs sense of smell, sight is way beyond that of a 7 year old.

Rw: Sense of smell, yes. Sight is another issue since dogs are color blind. Certainly their night vision is superior but this incident didn’t occur at night. I’m also not so sure smell is a relevant issue here either. Do you have any evidence that hornets convey a particular odor that a dog would recognize as a sign of danger?
Maybe hornets give out a smell we humans cannot sense. I believe they should have some kind of smell. Especially considering we are talking plural here (many wasps) there could even be a sound . Of course I have no evidence but I believe its a logical assumption. Mating needs of anumals and all. Are you of the idea that since a dog is colour blind, you would spot a rabbit before a dog that was accompanying you?

Jaliet: Dogs can tell the difference between adults and 7 year olds.

Rw: You would think so, yes, but again you haven’t supported this contention yet.

jaliet: Dogs behave differently towards adults. When I was a kid, dogs could only be scared by my bigger brothers. From that I concluded the dogs believed us to be harmless. Even wielding a stick, the dog would snarl at us kids as opposed to fleeing if its an adult. So dogs know kids are helpless.

[i]Jaliet: It was taking care of you as would any other well trained dog do to a 7 year old boy.[/]

Rw: He was playing with me and being my companion.
jaliet: A snarling dog is not a playing dog. That is threat display. At that moment it was taking charge. That is the moment I was referring to
..Any assertion that attempts to ascribe any more complex motive to his behavior must be supported.
jaliet: I believe this I have done above

Jaliet: many a story has been told about dogs rescuing babies from burning houses, so nothing extremely unique in this aspect.

Rw: Yes, babies crying profusely and fires raging out of control conveying the definite information to even the simplest creature that danger abounds. This is hardly an equivalent example.
So it has to be extreme, ongoing and graphical danger? Are you saying that dogs cannot tell that hornets are dangerous? Remember we havent discounted the idea that the dog "knew" instinctively or otherwise, that hornets are dangeous - because we really dont know but its possible.
Are you saying that the natural thing for the dog to do would be to wait till you were screaming with the hornets upon you before intervening?
Does a dog wait for someone to bring a raised stick down before fleeing?

...The sights, sounds and smell of a burning house are un-mistakable. Is there an equivalent odor, sight and sound to a beehive?
I read somewhere that dogs can smell over a million different smells (a google search can give you sth on this) and their sense of smell is many times stronger than that of a hunter leave alone a 7 year old kid.
A hornet is likely to have a smell and a sound because we are talking about a horde of insects not one insect.
The same is applicable to a beehive
jaliet: Are u saying some dogs would have taken more time to think of a way to stop you? Are you saying that was the most efficient means of prevention any dog could devise? As you said, you could still have sidestepped and proceeded. What if you got terrified and did something worse than stand still?

Rw: I am saying even a human would have been hard pressed to conceive of a means to prevent me from colliding with that hive in the time frame allotted and in the way the entire situation un-folded...
Oh please
...It all happened very quickly and smoothly without interruption.
Oh please
From the time I passed into the little clearing between the last tree and the tree in front of me containing the hive there was maybe two seconds to collision. I was running fast. Something I could do at that age.
You were only running as fast as a 7 year old, who is carrying a "gun" and ducking tree branches would - now how fast can that be?
You are now talking about a clearing - are you trying to contrive the story or do you want to tell it once more all over again?
I am ready to have an edited version.
About the only thing an adult could have done were he to have been in front of me and to have spotted the danger would be to have thrown out his arms and caught me.
Oh no, are you speaking for all adults here or are you speaking for yourself?
My dog chose a highly peculiar and fortunate, (for me), time to display this unusual behavior, having no arms with which to catch me.
Maybe the running had worn you out thus the easiest thing to do was to stand, not turn around and run back (a snarling dog can really scare a 7 year old - unless u wanna tell us that it had a habit of snarling to get your attention)

jaliet: That was simply because he too had to be close enough to "know" there was danger at that spot.

Rw: You assume a knowledge without substantiating the assumption.
Not true, tell us what the dog should have done. My contention is that the dog "stopped" you at that time, because it was at that particular time that it realized there was danger. You OTOH say that the timing had nothing to do with the dog, like is was made "split-second" to heighten the significance of the moment. You are implying that God did the timing. Am I right?

U talk about me assuming a knowledge without substantiating my assumption yet that is what you are doing - anyway, I will introduce the logical fallacies you have committed later, I want to keep it simple for now.
... Do you have any relevant material that suggests dogs instinctually know bees are a danger?
No sir.
How do dogs know that fire is dangerous? Can a dog that has never been burnt know that fire is dangerous?
You wanna talk about relevant material?
Where is the relevant material that shows dogs do not know that hornets are dangerous? Even after a dog has saved you from them you still insist that the dog had no idea that the hornets were even present leave alone dangerous?
Are you being sincere?

Jaliet: You are saying I gave a false analogy?
Rw: Yes.
then see below
Jaliet: Dogs do rescue human babies from burning buildings - or are u saying that such dogs mistake babies for their pups?

Rw: Fire is quite a big difference from a beehive. Squalling, terrified babies are quite different from a 7 year old playing and making gunshot noises with his mouth. False analogy? You be the judge.
Ok, so what makes the analogy false? Lack of a crying and squealing baby?
So the analogy would be fine if the babies involved were calm and quiet?
I think whats important here is whether the dogs involved recognize the imminent danger and whether the dogs are compelled for whatever reason to come to the "rescue" - unless you want to nitpick. Because of the two reasons I have stated, the analogy is not false.
You are implying the danger must be roaring, ongoing and glaringly imminent for my analogy to fit. I think you are stretching it a bit too far.

Jaliet: He could have bit your cloth and dragged u away. You are trying to make the actions of the dog seem so incredible.

Rw: I don’t have to try. You are trying to make them seem mundane. You must try harder.
Its not mundane at all. I dont consider it mundane. I think it was an unusual event. But that is all, I dont think an event must involve God for it to be unusual - but of course people use events to do all sorts of things. I am just trying to establish that it could have happened for a number of reasons (not necessarily God) and that it could have happened to everyone. Come to think of it, I am sure at least 85% of us can point out some extraordinary event in our lives, or an event that could have resulted in a death but did not - for whatever reason. You choose to try to make yours appear very "impossible" - yet it did happen. You elevate it to great heights then attribute it to God. Its not about the event being mundane, its how you interpret it.

Jaliet: It was a trained dog for heavens sake! what was it supposed to do?

Rw: Do you know of any animal trainer that intentionally trains dogs to recognize and prevent children from colliding with beehives?
Nope, are you saying every "intelligent" thing a dog does must come from the training it was given?

..Your argument, as well as your tone, is taking a nosedive here.
I am just saying that its possible that in the dogs previous life, It had come to know what hornets are, and what they are capable of. I am not saying it had to have got the knowledge from "class". Dogs "roam" in the woods more than boys. Correct me if I am wrong.
Saying ,my argument is taking a nosedive without explaining why and how is a waste of time.

Jaliet: Fairly certain...I like that.

Rw: Why?
Because you dont sound fanatic when you say that. Indeed you sound reasonable.
Unlike when you attribute an extraordinary event to a creature that we have never seen/ experienced. Without giving any evidence. Its a case of subverted support - a logical fallacy - there is no evidence that it happened because God intervened - the phenomena you use to explain the cause of the event has not been explained. The farthest you can go (if I give you some slack) - is demonstrate that it was an unusual thing for a dog to do. Even then THE DOG DID IT and YOU COOPERATED. It took the two of you to save you. There is no evidence that the Dog could not have done it without God.

jaliet: What I am driving at is: is it possible that he did what he did because he was a well-trained dog?
Rw: No. He wasn’t trained for such situations so it isn’t even remotely possible that he was drawing upon some learned behavior here. There isn’t even any reason to suspect he was acting in concert with a recognition that a beehive represented danger.
I have explained that it is possible that the dog may have encountered/ experienced hornets before joining your family. This could have helped it sense the danger through smell, sound or sight (all these I have explained above)

The training aspect comes in when you consider how it handled the situation. Not in the sensing of the danger.

Jaliet: Dont you believe that there are special dogs?

Rw: I believe all dogs are unique and special.
All dogs are obviously unique - you think we are idiots? I said special, introducing the word "unique" here is a weak attempt at creating a strawman.
...I currently own two dogs, three cats and three horses.
How is this relevant?

Jaliet: If not, are you saying no credit goes to the dog and all credit goes to God for intervening?

Rw: I hadn’t really thought of it in that sense.
I know you did not, why dont you do so now? A dog was involved for christs sake, if you want to introduce God, you better tell us whether the dog is relevant and how, same to the God
...I just know my dog did something extremely unique, something I believe he was guided towards by a divine intervention.
We all have what we believe, what I am interested in NOW - is, why do you believe God was involved? Is there evidence? Or is it a case of a drowning faith clutching at a straw?

Jaliet: what is the role of the dog in the scenario? didnt his strong sense of smell and training play any part?

Rw: Do hornets give off an odor? What type of training could have prepared him to recognize the danger?
I have explained that hornets are more likely than not to have a smell because they are many insects and they give off some fluid (for mating, excretion - or for building) - we may not be able to smell hornets, but then again we are not dogs, we cannot smell as much as dogs do.
Whatever we say, the dog sensed the danger - you are introducing divine intervention as another way of sensing things.
You are introducing a complex cause (ie. because its highly unlikely - there must be God involved), and you are also committing the logical fallacy of begging the question - first, we must agree that God indeed intervenes before we can agree that he intervened in that case. For us to agree he intervenes, we must show cause/ evidence. If we cannot do that then we have no reason for believing that and are being irrational.

Jaliet: Or is it God, God, God pasted all over the event? Does some credit go to the Dog? If so, which part of the credit goes to God?

Rw: Why does it matter so much to you?
What people say matters to me. If you say something, you must explain why you say/ claim whatever it is you are saying. If you cannot, then you are being irrational. Its important to me to demonstrate that you are being irrational because others who think like you will change their ways, - thus we have a better world full of rational people - thus we avoid stuff like Sept 11, world wars etc and It also helps me to adjust my way of reasoning - by weighing, comparing, contrasting, questioning, examining, validating. Its an excercise that makes me "better" - at least in my eyes.

You could also ask "Why is it so important to read good books? "
For me this is a learning experience.

rw earlier: God could have used one of the hornets to accomplish the same end by sending it as an advance attack to warn me of their presence.

jaliet: But you dont know that

rw: You asked me a speculative question so I gave you a speculative answer. Do you know that He couldn’t have?
Nope - if we dont know either, then we should claim none. That is my position. If you claim sth, you must support it.

jaliet: Like said before by many, nothing is unique in a dog saving the child of man, or even man himself, from danger

rw: This is true, unless the source of danger is very rare and unique, requiring a real stretch to allow it a natural occurrence ruling.
Special/ unusual/ extraordinary things dont always require any stretch. What stretch does it require to bear a baby with 7 legs ot two heads? Or a one month old baby surviving an accident where 300 people died. It happens, buts its extraordinary - indeed very rare, well nigh impossible - but no stretch is required. But it needs to be stretched if we have to involve God, or some other unexplained phenomena.
jaliet: By your own admission, he should have done it earlier, he saved u just in the nich of time. He saved u when he could, its not like he timed it.

Rw: No, you misunderstood. I said that if he had previous knowledge of the location of the hive he could have turned me before he did. I didn’t say he should have. I am showing that in a matter of seconds he stopped me in my tracks. I’m not saying he understood what he was doing or why. I’m only saying that had he not stopped me in my tracks when he did I would have collided with a hornets nest face first. In a matter of seconds he stopped you in your tracks? How long should a dog take to stop a 7 year old boy? 2 minutes? Are you of the opinion that if it was not for God, he could have taken a minute? It has never been tested that dogs take more than a second to stop 7 year olds from danger, so you have no reason for making the event, or the timing, seem so significant or incredible.

...The only reason I am arguing as though he did understand what he was doing is because that is the only course a natural explanation can take other than just blind luck. I can’t say my dog even knew there was a hornets nest there. He didn’t appear to notice it. He wasn’t standing there staring at it or growling at it or showing any sign of acknowledging its existence. He was focused entirely on me.
If the hornets were coming at you it would be logical for the dog to bark or growl at them but you were the one who was rushing at the hornets. How are you reasoning man? Of course the dog doesnt have to appear to notice anything , whats important is that it acted to save you. It was in the nick of time. For christs sake the dog only "knew" at the last minute - and you were too busy shooting at your enemies to even have noticed any earlier warnings the dog may have given.

rw earlier: ...entirely but I happen to have been there and know there were two many consequential factors whose ramifications make chance or luck seem untenable as an explanation.We will tackle these factors shortly
Had my dog simply cut across in front of me tripping me up you might have a better case for luck, but his actions were deliberate and forceful and successful.

jaliet: So if the Dog failed to stop you there would be no case of God intervening? Is that what you are saying? that God intervened because it "worked"?

rw: Not necessarily, no. If my dog had failed to stop me, and I survived the collision, and I recognized that he had tried to stop me I might have still attributed his efforts to God and his failure to my own inability to respond.
So what would have made you discount Gods involvement?

jaliet: His actions were merely successful because you complied, as would many 7 yr olds, but not all would comply.

Rw: You must first account for his actions before you attempt to diminish their significance. I screeched to a halt out of fear because he gave every indication of being about to attack me. My compliance, as you call it, was instinctual.
I have accounted for his actions - why he could have sensed the danger, and why he could have acted why he did. Your compliance was instinctual but it was necessary for the dogs attemt to save u to be successful. So we cannot assume that the dogs style was the best way of saving you. It worked because you complied, not because it was foolproof/ excellent. If an adult was around, he could have patted the dog, then patted your head and said "clever boy" - because u sensed danger and acted in a way that saved u.

jaliet earlier: Why would God intervene for you while millions of others die of Starvation, floods, earthquakes all over the world? Are you of the opinion that for some reason, God feels your life is more important that that of the rest?

Rw earlier: I don’t know the answer to that.
Then the explanation/ reason for your faith is too incomplete inadequate and unsatisfactory. God is a universal phenomena (assuming he exists) and I do not believe it is rational for you to assume that God would desert millions of others to come and rescue you from wasps. If you can explain why you are special to God, then u have a reason for believeing as you do, otherwise there is no reason to believe he specifically "came" to save you.

Jaliet: I am sure you dont. But how do you deal with that? How do you just dismiss other peoples misery and choose to believe you survived because you are special/ better than them? How do you deal with that?

Rw: I don’t even think in those paradigms. Why should I?
Because we ALL Matter. I believe everyone is important, every human life. I expect a loving God to love each of us equally. And if intervening is his style, then indeed he needs to intervene for those being raped (physically) those being screwed by dictators as well as those being attacked by hornets.

..Do you think about every starving child every time you swallow a morsel of food?
Unlike you, I do, but I swallow anyway because there is very little, if anything I can do to stop hunger in this world. I consider them unfortunate to be in their situations, but I do not believe that God gave me food and gave them hunger, because that would be in conflict with the belief that God loves us all.
What is the purpose of this line of questioning?
To establish your way of thinking. To shake the roots of your faith. Using simple reasoning. Questions provoke thought, they get you out of your comfortable shells of faith. When you crawl out of the shells to respond to the questions, I administer simple logic - that will make crawling back to the shell a bit more uncomfortable. That is my style.
Why haven’t you responded to my questions?
I believe I have now. Havent I?
Is this going to be a one sided conversation where you do all the interrogation and I must dutifully answer every question?
Nope, ask whenever you wanna ask.
Why should I continue under such rude conditions?
I apologise if you find me rude. That was not my intention.

jaliet: Gotta go now

rw: Not so fast…you haven’t run out of questions have you? When do I get a turn?
Answer my questions, take a turn whenever u want. Its a free world and this is a free forum.

In summary, I believe U have comitted a number of logical fallacies among them you created a strawman, your premises are fallacious, your interpretation of the event is begging the question (it does not follow), you have introduced a complex cause to explain the event without supporting your reasons (other than that it was very unlikely without God) You have made a hasty Generalization (Gods dont save kids from hornets like Lad did unless God is involved),
fallacy of style over substance ( that the dog did it too spectacularly for a dog - the fact remains that the dog did it), your experience was also an unrepresentative sample to draw the conclusion (it has not been tested that dogs do not save people from prevuously unseen hornets unless God is involved) or the fallacy of accident. You have comitted the fallacy of exclusion - you have not given any credit to the dog in spite of the fact that the dog is the animal that rescued you....
I could continue forever.
Bottom line is that it is irrational to attribute your being saved to God. For the reasons given above. Do you agree?

Ted Hoffman · 01-03-2002, 05:16 AM

A number of times ignorance plays a part in peoples lack of rationality. I do not mean to imply that RW is ignorant, but the following links might provide some insight about the sense of smell of dogs and the nature of hornets/ wasps.

Among others they provide info such as a dogs sense of smell is 1000 times better than that of humans, the composition of hornets (queen, sterile workers, mad daubers etc)

<a href="http://www.earthsky.com/2000/es000713.html" target="_blank">http://www.earthsky.com/2000/es000713.html</a>

<a href="http://www.ivyhall.district96.k12.il.us/4th/kkhp/1insects/waspfax.html" target="_blank">http://www.ivyhall.district96.k12.il.us/4th/kkhp/1insects/waspfax.html</a>

<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/extraordinarydogs/funfacts.html" target="_blank">http://www.pbs.org/wnet/extraordinarydogs/funfacts.html</a>

<a href="http://www.cf.ac.uk/biosi/staff/jacob/teaching/sensory/olfact1.html" target="_blank">http://www.cf.ac.uk/biosi/staff/jacob/teaching/sensory/olfact1.html</a>

They are not enough, but provide very relevant info to RW's "extraordinary experience"

madmax2976 · 01-03-2002, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rainbow walking:
MM: Assuming I had a lack of "suggestions" to offer, would you consider this itself a valid indication that a deity exists?

rw: The question is, would you consider your lack of suggestions to be a valid reason to exclude the possibility of divine intervention?

Of course not. I'm not sure I would ever "exclude the possibility" of anything except perhaps that which is contradictory. The mere possibility of any particular thing however, is not particularly interesting since a great many things may be "possible" though they may in fact not be true.

It is logical to exclude certain possibilities based on probability. If your late for an appointment and state it was because of a flat tire, I will hold that to be more probable than if you stated you were kidnapped by a UFO for an hour. Likewise I would find a number of naturalistic possibilities for your dog warning you away from the hornets more probable than some supernatural entity excercising mind control upon a canine.

If we lack any conclusive evidence for the naturalistic possibilities, its a simple matter of admitting we don't really know and moving on. The world is full of mysteries. Invoking magical deities whenever we're confronted by them doesn't offer any solutions. It could even be detrimental, as it could impeed any serious investigation which would provide us with actual understanding of the phenomena.

Ted Hoffman · 01-03-2002, 08:53 AM

previously said by Madmax2796

Quote:

If we lack any conclusive evidence for the naturalistic possibilities, its a simple matter of admitting we don't really know and moving on. The world is full of mysteries. Invoking magical deities whenever we're confronted by them doesn't offer any solutions. It could even be detrimental, as it could impeed any serious investigation which would provide us with actual understanding of the phenomena.

I couldnt have put it any better.
It is foolhardy, irresponsible and downright dangerous to assign the occurence of an event to an unexplained phenomena just because we find the event extraordinary.
This shroud of God did it and the Devil has made them blind is the cloak that has protected ignorance for so many years. In retrospect, it slowed down ideas like evolution, abnormal medicene (psychiatry) etc because the great son of God attributed madness, epileptic fits etc to posession by demons.
I think as a rule, the best approach - whenever confronted by unusual events is to exhaust all the naturalistic/ scientific explanations before "jumping the gun" with wild, uninformed, far-fetched, unscientific, unprovable and baseless conclusions like "God did it".
At the very worst I believe "I dont know how/ why" is a more intellectually honest/ useful response than God did it, when U cannot explain why he did not do "it" in other cases.
Saying I do not know leaves an avenue for further research.
If we do not understand, it does not mean we are dumb. Its because we lack info.
Maybe its indeed God, but we have ABSOLUTELY no reason to believe so, and therefore we should leave it as such - we do not understand.
Mysteries only Exist because we lack information.

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

01-02-2002, 09:16 AM	#11
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Thank U for responding RW RW: I can’t verify the truth of his training but have no reason to doubt my dad’s word and Lad was indeed very intelligent and obedient. I also can’t say with certainty that he had never had any previous experience with bees. Oh…and dad didn’t buy him, he was given to me. jaliet : So we can say its possible that it had some previous experience with wasps and thus acted as it did? In any case, a dogs sense of smell, sight is way beyond that of a 7 year old. Dogs can tell the difference between adults and 7 year olds. It was taking care of you as would any other well trained dog do to a 7 year old boy. jaliet :If you came to know that your dog had an experience with hornets, would you dismiss the idea of divine intervention in that event? Rw: Not at all. It’s one thing to recognize a danger, and another to recognize that danger is also applicable to another dominant species, many a story has been told about dogs rescuing babies from burning houses, so nothing extremely unique in this aspect .. and quite another to do so in such a small time frame and devise a means of prevention all in one moments notice. Are u saying some dogs would have taken more time to think of a way to stop you? Are you saying thate was the most efficient means of prevention any dog could devise? As you said, you could still have sidestepped and proceeded. What if you got terrified and did something worse than stand still? ...Those woods were very thick and Lad was only ten or so feet out front of me when the experience occurred. Even if he had previous recollection of the location of that hive he could have turned me from a collision course with it much sooner than to wait until I was within a few feet of it. That was simply because he too had to be close enough to "know" there was danger at that spot. Rw: I am well aware that animals have complicated survival instincts, especially for their young, but I wasn’t a pup and Lad was a male dog. You are saying I gave a false analogy? Dogs do rescue human babies from burning buildings - or are u saying that such dogs mistake babies for their pups? Rw: I suppose he could have knocked me down or somehow used his body to deflect my trajectory and he was, in fact, standing in a position to do so, such that I would have had to run over him to have collided with the hive. He could have bit your cloth and dragged u away. You are trying to make the actions of the dog seem so incredible. It was a trained dog for heavens sake! what was it supposed to do? rw: I’m fairly certain that he wouldn’t have buried anything that far from the house. He wasn’t in the habit of wandering off and I really can’t recall an instance of him burying anything although this is a common canine trait. Fairly certain...I like that. He was a perfect farm dog. I don’t think or see where this had any bearing on my interpretation of the experience. What I am driving at is: is it possible that he did what he did because he was a well-trained dog? Dont you believe that there are speacial dogs? If not, are you saying no credit goes to the dog and all credit goes to God for intervening? what is the role of the dog in the scenario? didnt his strong sense of smell and training play any part? Or is it God, God, God pasted all over the event? Does some credit go to the Dog? If so, which part of the credit goes to God? God could have used one of the hornets to accomplish the same end by sending it as an advance attack to warn me of their presence. But you dont know that The point is, I was prevented, by an animal, from a potentially fatal collision with a hive of bees. Like said before by many, nothing is unique in a dog saving the child of man, or even man himself, from danger The time frame in which all of this occurred is critical. I wasn’t walking or jogging but running furiously in my imagined battle with aliens.By your own admission, he should have done it earlier, he saved u just in the nich of time. He saved u when he could, its not like he timed it. If you are asking me why I don’t just interpret the experience as a case of good fortune, I haven’t ruled that out Thank you so much ...entirely but I happen to have been there and know there were two many consequential factors whose ramifications make chance or luck seem untenable as an explanation.We will tackle these factors shortly Had my dog simply cut across in front of me tripping me up you might have a better case for luck, but his actions were deliberate and forceful and successful. So if the Dog failed to stop you there would be no case of God intervening? Is that what you are saying? that God intervened because it "worked"? His actions were merely successful because you complied, as would many 7 yr olds, but not all would comply. Why would God intervene for you while millions of others die of Starvation, floods, earthquakes all over the world? Are you of the opinion that for some reason, God feels your life is more important that that of the rest? Rw: I don’t know the answer to that. I am sure you dont. But how do you deal with that? How do you just dismiss other peoples misery and choose to believe you survived because you are special/ better than them? How do you deal with that? Gotta go now

01-02-2002, 12:57 PM	#13
rainbow walking Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Erewhon Posts: 2,608	Thank U for responding RW Rw: U�re welcome jaliet : So we can say its possible that it had some previous experience with wasps and thus acted as it did? Rw: Sure, anything is possible although I�m mystified as to what previous experience with wasps has to do with hornets. Jaliet: In any case, a dogs sense of smell, sight is way beyond that of a 7 year old. Rw: Sense of smell, yes. Sight is another issue since dogs are color blind. Certainly their night vision is superior but this incident didn�t occur at night. I�m also not so sure smell is a relevant issue here either. Do you have any evidence that hornets convey a particular odor that a dog would recognize as a sign of danger? Jaliet: Dogs can tell the difference between adults and 7 year olds. Rw: You would think so, yes, but again you haven�t supported this contention yet. Jaliet: It was taking care of you as would any other well trained dog do to a 7 year old boy. Rw: He was playing with me and being my companion. Any assertion that attempts to ascribe any more complex motive to his behavior must be supported. Jaliet: many a story has been told about dogs rescuing babies from burning houses, so nothing extremely unique in this aspect. Rw: Yes, babies crying profusely and fires raging out of control conveying the definite information to even the simplest creature that danger abounds. This is hardly an equivalent example. The sights, sounds and smell of a burning house are un-mistakable. Is there an equivalent odor, sight and sound to a beehive? jaliet: Are u saying some dogs would have taken more time to think of a way to stop you? Are you saying that was the most efficient means of prevention any dog could devise? As you said, you could still have sidestepped and proceeded. What if you got terrified and did something worse than stand still? Rw: I am saying even a human would have been hard pressed to conceive of a means to prevent me from colliding with that hive in the time frame allotted and in the way the entire situation un-folded. It all happened very quickly and smoothly without interruption. From the time I passed into the little clearing between the last tree and the tree in front of me containing the hive there was maybe two seconds to collision. I was running fast. Something I could do at that age. About the only thing an adult could have done were he to have been in front of me and to have spotted the danger would be to have thrown out his arms and caught me. My dog chose a highly peculiar and fortunate, (for me), time to display this unusual behavior, having no arms with which to catch me. jaliet: That was simply because he too had to be close enough to "know" there was danger at that spot. Rw: You assume a knowledge without substantiating the assumption. Do you have any relevant material that suggests dogs instinctually know bees are a danger? Jaliet: You are saying I gave a false analogy? Rw: Yes. Jaliet: Dogs do rescue human babies from burning buildings - or are u saying that such dogs mistake babies for their pups? Rw: Fire is quite a big difference from a beehive. Squalling, terrified babies are quite different from a 7 year old playing and making gunshot noises with his mouth. False analogy? You be the judge. Jaliet: He could have bit your cloth and dragged u away. You are trying to make the actions of the dog seem so incredible. Rw: I don�t have to try. You are trying to make them seem mundane. You must try harder. Jaliet: It was a trained dog for heavens sake! what was it supposed to do? Rw: Do you know of any animal trainer that intentionally trains dogs to recognize and prevent children from colliding with beehives? Your argument, as well as your tone, is taking a nosedive here. Jaliet: Fairly certain...I like that. Rw: Why? jaliet: What I am driving at is: is it possible that he did what he did because he was a well-trained dog? Rw: No. He wasn�t trained for such situations so it isn�t even remotely possible that he was drawing upon some learned behavior here. There isn�t even any reason to suspect he was acting in concert with a recognition that a beehive represented danger. Jaliet: Dont you believe that there are speacial dogs? Rw: I believe all dogs are unique and special. I currently own two dogs, three cats and three horses. Jaliet: If not, are you saying no credit goes to the dog and all credit goes to God for intervening? Rw: I hadn�t really thought of it in that sense. I just know my dog did something extremely unique, something I believe he was guided towards by a divine intervention. Jaliet: what is the role of the dog in the scenario? didnt his strong sense of smell and training play any part? Rw: Do hornets give off an odor? What type of training could have prepared him to recognize the danger? Jaliet: Or is it God, God, God pasted all over the event? Does some credit go to the Dog? If so, which part of the credit goes to God? Rw: Why does it matter so much to you? rw earlier: God could have used one of the hornets to accomplish the same end by sending it as an advance attack to warn me of their presence. jaliet: But you dont know that rw: You asked me a speculative question so I gave you a speculative answer. Do you know that He couldn�t have? jaliet: Like said before by many, nothing is unique in a dog saving the child of man, or even man himself, from danger rw: This is true, unless the source of danger is very rare and unique, requiring a real stretch to allow it a natural occurrence ruling. jaliet: By your own admission, he should have done it earlier, he saved u just in the nich of time. He saved u when he could, its not like he timed it. Rw: No, you misunderstood. I said that if he had previous knowledge of the location of the hive he could have turned me before he did. I didn�t say he should have. I am showing that in a matter of seconds he stopped me in my tracks. I�m not saying he understood what he was doing or why. I�m only saying that had he not stopped me in my tracks when he did I would have collided with a hornets nest face first. The only reason I am arguing as though he did understand what he was doing is because that is the only course a natural explanation can take other than just blind luck. I can�t say my dog even knew there was a hornets nest there. He didn�t appear to notice it. He wasn�t standing there staring at it or growling at it or showing any sign of acknowledging its existence. He was focused entirely on me. rw earlier: If you are asking me why I don�t just interpret the experience as a case of good fortune, I haven�t ruled that out jaliet: Thank you so much rw earlier: ...entirely but I happen to have been there and know there were two many consequential factors whose ramifications make chance or luck seem untenable as an explanation.We will tackle these factors shortly Had my dog simply cut across in front of me tripping me up you might have a better case for luck, but his actions were deliberate and forceful and successful. jaliet: So if the Dog failed to stop you there would be no case of God intervening? Is that what you are saying? that God intervened because it "worked"? rw: Not necessarily, no. If my dog had failed to stop me, and I survived the collision, and I recognized that he had tried to stop me I might have still attributed his efforts to God and his failure to my own inability to respond. jaliet: His actions were merely successful because you complied, as would many 7 yr olds, but not all would comply. Rw: You must first account for his actions before you attempt to diminish their significance. I screeched to a halt out of fear because he gave every indication of being about to attack me. My compliance, as you call it, was instinctual. jaliet earlier: Why would God intervene for you while millions of others die of Starvation, floods, earthquakes all over the world? Are you of the opinion that for some reason, God feels your life is more important that that of the rest? Rw earlier: I don�t know the answer to that. Jaliet: I am sure you dont. But how do you deal with that? How do you just dismiss other peoples misery and choose to believe you survived because you are special/ better than them? How do you deal with that? Rw: I don�t even think in those paradigms. Why should I? Do you think about every starving child every time you swallow a morsel of food? What is the purpose of this line of questioning? Why haven�t you responded to my questions? Is this going to be a one sided conversation where you do all the interrogation and I must dutifully answer every question? Why should I continue under such rude conditions? jaliet: Gotta go now rw: Not so fast�you haven�t run out of questions have you? When do I get a turn?

01-02-2002, 04:02 PM	#16
rainbow walking Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Erewhon Posts: 2,608	MM: Assuming I had a lack of "suggestions" to offer, would you consider this itself a valid indication that a deity exists? rw: The question is, would you consider your lack of suggestions to be a valid reason to exclude the possibility of divine intervention?

01-03-2002, 05:16 AM	#18
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	A number of times ignorance plays a part in peoples lack of rationality. I do not mean to imply that RW is ignorant, but the following links might provide some insight about the sense of smell of dogs and the nature of hornets/ wasps. Among others they provide info such as a dogs sense of smell is 1000 times better than that of humans, the composition of hornets (queen, sterile workers, mad daubers etc) <a href="http://www.earthsky.com/2000/es000713.html" target="_blank">http://www.earthsky.com/2000/es000713.html</a> <a href="http://www.ivyhall.district96.k12.il.us/4th/kkhp/1insects/waspfax.html" target="_blank">http://www.ivyhall.district96.k12.il.us/4th/kkhp/1insects/waspfax.html</a> <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/extraordinarydogs/funfacts.html" target="_blank">http://www.pbs.org/wnet/extraordinarydogs/funfacts.html</a> <a href="http://www.cf.ac.uk/biosi/staff/jacob/teaching/sensory/olfact1.html" target="_blank">http://www.cf.ac.uk/biosi/staff/jacob/teaching/sensory/olfact1.html</a> They are not enough, but provide very relevant info to RW's "extraordinary experience"

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.