Debate Coming Up

[Roy]

Just watched the debate - Nye was ok, but I thought he was rather gentle - he seemed to lack a killer instinct. Or maybe he didn't want to alienate a hostile audience.

I think the crucial point was that when Ken Ham was asked for a extra-Biblical evidence that supported his account of creation he was unable to come up with a single concrete example.

Roy

[shunyadragon]

Just watched the debate - Nye was ok, but I thought he was rather gentle - he seemed to lack a killer instinct. Or maybe he didn't want to alienate a hostile audience.

From Nye's perspective it was more of a public relations debate. He avoided evangelical science fact thumper, which was a good approach, because if he did he would come across like Dawkins and turn to many people off.

I think the crucial point was that when Ken Ham was asked for a extra-Biblical evidence that supported his account of creation he was unable to come up with a single concrete example.

Roy

Correct!! that is what I pointed out previously. This somewhat of a switch from previous AIG tactics.

[Joel]

...then Ham claiming nature isn't uniform enough to know anything about what happened before humans were around to observe it directly.

I don't recall him making that claim.

[rogue06]

Not that I put any stock in what Pat Robertson says nevertheless this is interesting:

Pat Robertson responded to the recent debate between Young Earth creationist Ken Ham and Bill Nye, a.k.a. “The Science Guy,” by reiterating his disagreement with Ham’s form of creationism.

“Let’s face it,” Robertson said, “there was a Bishop [Ussher] who added up the dates listed in Genesis and he came up with the world had been around for 6,000 years.”

“There ain’t no way that’s possible,” he continued. “To say that it all came about in 6,000 years is just nonsense and I think it’s time we come off of that stuff and say this isn’t possible.”

“Let’s be real, let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

“We’ve got to be realistic,” he concluded, and admit “that the dating of Bishop Ussher just doesn’t comport with anything that is found in science and you can’t just totally deny the geological formations that are out there.”

Source

[HMS_Beagle]

Originally Posted by Pat Robertson implores creationist Ken Ham to shut up: ‘Let’s not make a joke of ourselves’

Decades too late.

[Joel]

I think a key question was asked, right at the end of the debate: IF you should be wrong, what would convince you of this?

Nye: Evidence
Ham: Nothing

As a contrast between approaches, that's as succinct and accurate as it gets.

Everyone (including Nye) has beliefs of which no evidence would convince them otherwise.

To give a universal example, every empiricist insisting on falsifiability must believe in the law of non-contradiction, because falsifying is the use of the law of non-contradiction. Thus no empirical evidence could possibly falsify it. Empiricism assumes a number of things that therefore cannot be proved wrong without therefore refuting empiricism itself, thus eliminating the possibility of empirically falsifying them. Furthermore, empirical observations are always interpreted in the light of other assumptions. Raw observations cannot interpret themselves. I submit that everyone interpreting observations does so using assumptions that cannot be refuted by observations, although one person's such assumptions may differ from another's (or from those of the same person at a different time). The idea of pure empiricism is logically untenable. My understanding is that that is a settled matter among philosophers of science, because of its insurmountable logical problems.

That Ham acknowledges a fundamental assumption he makes is not per se a count against him. It's better than someone being naive enough to think he as no such fundamental assumptions.

[seer]

That Ham acknowledges a fundamental assumption he makes is not per se a count against him. It's better than someone being naive enough to think he as no such fundamental assumptions.

Correct.

[phank]

Correct.

Incorrect. I don't dispute Joel that everyone has beliefs impervious to evidence, considered as a universal generality. BUT the question was asked in the context of the debate, specifically about the age of the earth. Nye was asking, for example, for a SINGLE FOSSIL found unambiguously in the wrong strata. And Ham was not "acknowledging a fundamental assumtion", he was saying his opinion about the age of the earth could not be changed.

Now, if the debate had been about Godel's theorem, and Nye had taken the position that Godel was wrong, and that every thruth in empiricism could be established through empiricism, then I would agree this is a logically incorrect position to take. And Ham was most emphatically NOT disputing or defending Godel here.

I take it you didn't watch the debate, and so you're simply guessing wrong about the context of this question. But that's why I provided multiple links, so that people would have the background on the topics discussed, the questions asked, and the context underlying them. So I take it you didn't read the links either.

But LOOK how well this supports Ham's position: You've decided that nothing will change your mind, to the point where even being ignorant of the issue doesn't matter. Nye knows better.

[Roy]

That Ham acknowledges a fundamental assumption he makes is not per se a count against him. It's better than someone being naive enough to think he as no such fundamental assumptions.

That would depend on the fundamental assumption being made. I suspect if some-one acknowledged making a fundamental assumption that the earth is shaped like a banana and the oceans consist of 5cm of fresh water atop an infinite depth of paprika flavoured blancmange, then you might just count that against them.

Roy

[shunyadragon]

Everyone (including Nye) has beliefs of which no evidence would convince them otherwise.

To give a universal example, every empiricist insisting on falsifiability must believe in the law of non-contradiction, because falsifying is the use of the law of non-contradiction. Thus no empirical evidence could possibly falsify it. Empiricism assumes a number of things that therefore cannot be proved wrong without therefore refuting empiricism itself, thus eliminating the possibility of empirically falsifying them. Furthermore, empirical observations are always interpreted in the light of other assumptions. Raw observations cannot interpret themselves. I submit that everyone interpreting observations does so using assumptions that cannot be refuted by observations, although one person's such assumptions may differ from another's (or from those of the same person at a different time). The idea of pure empiricism is logically untenable. My understanding is that that is a settled matter among philosophers of science, because of its insurmountable logical problems.

That Ham acknowledges a fundamental assumption he makes is not per se a count against him. It's better than someone being naive enough to think he as no such fundamental assumptions.

Not really true, Methodological Naturalism using falsification finds many hypothesis and theories fundamentally false about our physical universe over the history of science since the mid nineteenth century. Science advances and evolves based the successes and failures of Methodological Naturalism.

[shunyadragon]

Incorrect. I don't dispute Joel that everyone has beliefs impervious to evidence, considered as a universal generality. BUT the question was asked in the context of the debate, specifically about the age of the earth. Nye was asking, for example, for a SINGLE FOSSIL found unambiguously in the wrong strata. And Ham was not "acknowledging a fundamental assumtion", he was saying his opinion about the age of the earth could not be changed.

Now, if the debate had been about Godel's theorem, and Nye had taken the position that Godel was wrong, and that every thruth in empiricism could be established through empiricism, then I would agree this is a logically incorrect position to take. And Ham was most emphatically NOT disputing or defending Godel here.

I take it you didn't watch the debate, and so you're simply guessing wrong about the context of this question. But that's why I provided multiple links, so that people would have the background on the topics discussed, the questions asked, and the context underlying them. So I take it you didn't read the links either.

But LOOK how well this supports Ham's position: You've decided that nothing will change your mind, to the point where even being ignorant of the issue doesn't matter. Nye knows better.

Great response!!!!

[Joel]

Incorrect. I don't dispute Joel that everyone has beliefs impervious to evidence, considered as a universal generality. BUT the question was asked in the context of the debate, specifically about the age of the earth. Nye was asking, for example, for a SINGLE FOSSIL found unambiguously in the wrong strata. And Ham was not "acknowledging a fundamental assumtion", he was saying his opinion about the age of the earth could not be changed.

Ham's fundamental assumption is that the Bible gives a true, and plainly-worded history--and therefore that the numbers of years in the Bible from Creation can be added up to get the true date of the beginning of the world (i.e., presumably around 4000BC). I recall him repeatedly in the debate acknowledging that this is a fundamental assumption of his.

Or are you thinking that I meant that this specific question was a matter of a fundamental assumption for Nye? If so, I didn't intend to imply that. Only that it is a matter of fundamental assumption for Ham. It would be some other question that would touch more directly on one of Nye's fundamental assumptions, whatever they may be.

I take it you didn't watch the debate, and so you're simply guessing wrong about the context of this question. But that's why I provided multiple links, so that people would have the background on the topics discussed, the questions asked, and the context underlying them. So I take it you didn't read the links either.

But LOOK how well this supports Ham's position: You've decided that nothing will change your mind, to the point where even being ignorant of the issue doesn't matter. Nye knows better.

I watched the debate.

I haven't read everything at all the links you gave. I don't think we're supposed to argue by weblink, but to go the extra mile, I just now went back through your links and found the places in those articles where they discuss this particular question and answers, and I don't see any problems with what I said in my previous post. In fact, the last link you gave (by the YEC) seems to agree with what I said and goes beyond what I said:

"Nye said that evidence for creation would change his mind. But Nye made clear that he was unconditionally committed to a naturalistic worldview, which would make such evidence impossible. Neither man is actually willing to allow for any dispositive evidence to change his mind. Both operate in basically closed intellectual systems. The main problem is that Ken Ham knows this to be the case, but Bill Nye apparently does not. Ham was consistently bold in citing his confidence in God, in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and in the full authority and divine inspiration of the Bible. He never pulled a punch or hid behind an argument. Nye seems to believe that he is genuinely open to any and all new information, but it is clear that his ultimate intellectual authority is the prevailing scientific consensus. More than once he asserted a virtually unblemished confidence in the ability of modern science to correct itself. He steadfastly refused to admit that any intellectual presuppositions color his own judgment."

That Ham acknowledges a fundamental assumption he makes is not per se a count against him. It's better than someone being naive enough to think he as no such fundamental assumptions.

That would depend on the fundamental assumption being made. I suspect if some-one acknowledged making a fundamental assumption that the earth is shaped like a banana and the oceans consist of 5cm of fresh water atop an infinite depth of paprika flavoured blancmange, then you might just count that against them.

Roy

Any problems with the substance of someone's fundamental assumptions is a different matter from what I was talking about. I said "per se". Certainly you can disagree with someone's assumptions, or question your own, and sometimes even change your own or convince someone that theirs are wrong.

Not really true, Methodological Naturalism using falsification finds many hypothesis and theories fundamentally false about our physical universe over the history of science since the mid nineteenth century. Science advances and evolves based the successes and failures of Methodological Naturalism.

Of course there are things that have been falsified before. I never said otherwise.

[phank]

HI haven't read everything at all the links you gave. I don't think we're supposed to argue by weblink, but to go the extra mile, I just now went back through your links and found the places in those articles where they discuss this particular question and answers, and I don't see any problems with what I said in my previous post. In fact, the last link you gave (by the YEC) seems to agree with what I said and goes beyond what I said

Yes, what else could a YEC do, when confronted with every scientific paper written on anything close to the topic over the last 150 years, with hundreds of new studies coming out every month? About all he CAN do is to start tap-dancing about how those who actually do the heavy lifting to collect evidence are somehow trapped in a "worldview" which is just as unbreakable as simply Making Stuff Up.

Nye is correct - science is essentially fully able to correct any scientific errors. Nye is genuinely open to new evidence which will change his mind about scientific explanations based on prior scientific evidence. So the distinction this YEC is carefully NOT making, is the distinction between correcting FACTUAL errors, and refusing to even consider the factual evidence. And calling these the intellectual equivalent is, as usual, fundamentally dishonest.

Joel, I really don't know how to put this more plainly. Ham says the universe is 6000 years old! Do you have any idea how much evidence there is pointing to the actual age? Do you have any idea how many LINES of evidence point to the actual age? Are you seriously going to sit there and claim that Ham's age is as good as any other, on the grounds that Ham refuses to look at any evidence outside his bible?

[shunyadragon]

Of course there are things that have been falsified before. I never said otherwise.

Thus no empirical evidence could possibly falsify it. Empiricism assumes a number of things that therefore cannot be proved wrong without therefore refuting empiricism itself, thus eliminating the possibility of empirically falsifying them. Furthermore, empirical observations are always interpreted in the light of other assumptions. Raw observations cannot interpret themselves. I submit that everyone interpreting observations does so using assumptions that cannot be refuted by observations, although one person's such assumptions may differ from another's (or from those of the same person at a different time). The idea of pure empiricism is logically untenable. My understanding is that that is a settled matter among philosophers of science, because of its insurmountable logical problems.

Then you need to clarify the above. Some things that are falsified before, fail over time as new hypothesis and theories are proposed and tested and old hypothesis and theories are retested with new discoveries and methods. Even the assumption of uniformitism is constantly tested and falsified in research and discoveries.

No the matters are not settled among philosophers of science, because of insurmountable logical problems, What insurmountable logical problems are you referring to?

[Joel]

Nye is correct - science is essentially fully able to correct any scientific errors. Nye is genuinely open to new evidence which will change his mind about scientific explanations based on prior scientific evidence. So the distinction this YEC is carefully NOT making, is the distinction between correcting FACTUAL errors, and refusing to even consider the factual evidence. And calling these the intellectual equivalent is, as usual, fundamentally dishonest.

Ham's position, stated right from his opening statement, is that he does not reject any of the empirical evidence. He embraces it all and that he and Nye have and use the same evidence. The difference, according to Ham, is a difference in what assumptions are used to interpret the evidence. And that the study of history, which works with circumstantial evidence, relies on drawing inferences based on outside assumptions (far more so than in what he called "observational science").

Now, in principle, I think that's correct. Now if someone wants to argue that Ham is not doing what he claims he is doing (e.g., considering all the evidence), that's a different matter.

Can evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) correct/refute any assumptions used to interpret the evidence? Sometimes, but I think only in the case where a person finds that no consistent interpretation of the evidence is possible, in which case the person can be compelled to (re-)examine his assumptions more closely. But there is no guarantee in principle that evidence can/will fully correct all erroneous assumptions. In fact, we know it can't. Observations don't interpret themselves, and there necessarily always are multiple possible interpretations (especially regarding circumstantial evidence). And you already agreed that everyone has beliefs impervious to evidence.

Joel, I really don't know how to put this more plainly. Ham says the universe is 6000 years old! Do you have any idea how much evidence there is pointing to the actual age? Do you have any idea how many LINES of evidence point to the actual age?

I freely admit that I do not. But that's a different matter than the points I was making. None of my points was that Ham's age is as good as any other. Rather, my first reply to you in this thread was just to ward off the simplistic dismissal of Ham based solely on his acknowledging a fundamental assumption of his. If I say, "Ham should not be summarily dismissed on that ground alone," it's invalid for you to therefore conclude that I'm saying that "Ham's age is just as good as any other."

Again, to your question, I simply have not adequately studied the subject to say that I do. I'd like to, but from the searching I have done and books I have read, I suspect it would take many, many years of serious, dedicated study. It's on my list of things I'd like to do someday, but I don't know if I'll get to it in my lifetime. (There's just so much to do! :-) )