Lord, Lunatic, or Liar - False Dichotomy?

[Mountain Man]

No, all human history is not in doubt. Yes, you can't absolutely trust fallible humans, particularly when corroborating archeological evidence and outside testimony is lacking. Historical methods of investigation consider multiply sources when writing histories, and will consider early testimony as what was claimed in the record without making an absolute claim as true or false.

Miraculous claims of all religions are recorded by many historians as religious claims without considering them true nor false.



I do not consider them lunatics nor liars.



They may have written what they believed to be true, and it was not necessarily true. This is the case throughout history. By the evidence I do not consider the gospels first person testimony.

I'm not sure what you mean by "outside testimony". If you mean that a claim made by multiple independent sources is more likely true then you're in luck: in the gospels we have at least two independent eyewitnesses (Matthew and John), one who was most likely the personal scribe of an eyewitness (Mark writing for Peter), and one who interviewed numerous eyewitnesses and wrote a historical biography based on his meticulous research (Luke). Furthermore, at least two contemporary historians, Josephus and Tacitus, recorded corroborating details about the life of Jesus.

Furthermore, people believed what the apostles said, people who had every reason to reject the claims if they were false because they were completely contrary to cultural expectations and could have been easily disproved, but yet, people became Christians by the thousands. Look at Peter's address to the crowd in Acts 2. What's particularly interesting is that he appeals to their personal knowledge:

"Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know." He was appealing to their first-hand knowledge. These people weren't dumb enough to put their lives on the line for something which couldn't be proven true beyond a shadow of a doubt.

This is a body of evidence that can't be dismissed with idle suspicions that the apostles were lying or mistaken.

[Cerebrum123]

that's funny. can you really attain a position of authority in science with manufactured evidence? aren't your peers more than willing to do the math to prove you wrong?

I didn't say anything about "manufactured evidence". You did. It's more about controlling what's allowed than anything.

too many lives destroyed by what?

Science and scientists. Both medical practice, and those doing medical research. Then there was people like Ernst Haeckel and their eugenics. Which is unfortunately making a comeback.

[Juvenal]

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/garyhabermas.htm

Somebody ... just cited ... Troy Brooks!

Seriously.

Not in my wildest dreams did I think that could EVER happen.

[David Hayward]

Too many scientists are more interested in their politics, and keeping their position of authority than truth.

As regards Physics, I recommend Lee Smolin's book, "The Trouble With Physics", where he highlights how String Theory has through institutional factors -- how to get on (or even started) in institutions dominated by String Theorists -- gained what is in his opinion an oppressive stranglehold on modern research into Quantum Gravity; and that Physics has in his opinion stagnated as a result; he starts his book by pointing out that this generation of Physicists is the first that has not achieved a major breakthrough. (No, Higgs did his work long ago.)

As regards medical research, I recommend Ben Goldacre's book, "Bad Pharma", which slates the failings of pharmaceutical research; also his website http://www.badscience.net/ where, in his diligent championing of the highest standards of good science, he is diligent in pointing out many failures to achieve them.

As regards how well scientists understand the statistics they use to deduce many of their results, see the frequent complaints and conclusion-demolitions of WM Briggs at http://wmbriggs.com/, who thinks scientists very often don't understand statistics well enough, and that they often misuse them atrociously to reach sometimes very questionable or plain wrong conclusions. For a particularly bad example see http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=4923 for the first of seven linked blogs entitled "Can fMRI Predict Who Believes In God? Parts I-VII" in which he attacks a paper on neuroscience by Sam Harris, which paper he believes "is representative of the worst excesses of the field."

[Cerebrum123]

As regards Physics, I recommend Lee Smolin's book, "The Trouble With Physics", where he highlights how String Theory has through institutional factors -- how to get on (or even started) in institutions dominated by String Theorists -- gained what is in his opinion an oppressive stranglehold on modern research into Quantum Gravity; and that Physics has in his opinion stagnated as a result; he starts his book by pointing out that this generation of Physicists is the first that has not achieved a major breakthrough. (No, Higgs did his work long ago.)

As regards medical research, I recommend Ben Goldacre's book, "Bad Pharma", which slates the failings of pharmaceutical research; also his website http://www.badscience.net/ where, in his diligent championing of the highest standards of good science, he is diligent in pointing out many failures to achieve them.

As regards how well scientists understand the statistics they use to deduce many of their results, see the frequent complaints and conclusion-demolitions of WM Briggs at http://wmbriggs.com/, who thinks scientists very often don't understand statistics well enough, and that they often misuse them atrociously to reach sometimes very questionable or plain wrong conclusions. For a particularly bad example see http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=4923 for the first of seven linked blogs entitled "Can fMRI Predict Who Believes In God? Parts I-VII" in which he attacks a paper on neuroscience by Sam Harris, which paper he believes "is representative of the worst excesses of the field."

I'll try to remember to take a look at this later.

[Mountain Man]

Somebody ... just cited ... Troy Brooks!

Seriously.

Not in my wildest dreams did I think that could EVER happen.

I honestly don't know who Troy Brooks is or why it's a good or bad thing that I've cited him (your incredulity doesn't make it clear if you're pleased or perturbed). I don't know who wrote the article. I only posted it because it seemed to me to be an accurate presentation of the minimal facts thesis.

Well then, how about a similar essay from AnswersInGenesis.com? I'm sure you won't have a problem with that.

Oh, and thanks for zeroing in on that one link and ignoring the entire rest of my post. That's a great way to promote open and honest dialog.

[Juvenal]

Troy Brooks is probably the most infamous multiply banned sock-puppet creator on the web, MM. He's been banned from here at least a dozen times. That's what shocked me when I saw his site get linked.

And yes, indeed, I'd take a link to AiG over one from Troy any day of the week, twice on Thanksgiving, and never say a word if Troy was the alternative.

[Juvenal]

If you look around his site, I'd imagine you can still find hairy-ticking pages directed at Crow and Bill the Cat. I'm not going to bother, myself.

[whag]

I didn't say anything about "manufactured evidence". You did. It's more about controlling what's allowed than anything.

Okay, what data are they deliberately disallowing?

Science and scientists. Both medical practice, and those doing medical research. Then there was people like Ernst Haeckel and their eugenics. Which is unfortunately making a comeback.

You reject science because of destroyed lives you refuse to explain. Nice.

I think that when you explain it, you'll see that it has nothing to do with the scientific method that has confirmed biology evolves and that you are a primate,

[David Hayward]

But didn't you hear? Science is the ultimate self-correcting discipline and therefore immune to human error.

And if you believe that, I have some nice swampland in Florida you might be interested in.

Science should be self-correcting via replication of the experiments and confirmation or refutation (or disconfirmation, anyway) of the results. But is it? Looks like that doesn't happen much in eg cancer research or in psychology -- see the article "Replication Sudies: Bad Copy".

Also see "False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant".

And then there's the all-too-regular non-publication as not newsworthy of those scientific papers yielding non-positive results, either as null results or contradicting previous false positives -- systematic suppression would probably have indistinguishable results, so non-publication and suppression may well be functionally synonymous. Click picture below to see the main problem areas:
replication_graph.jpg

[whag]

I honestly don't know who Troy Brooks is or why it's a good or bad thing that I've cited him (your incredulity doesn't make it clear if you're pleased or perturbed). I don't know who wrote the article. I only posted it because it seemed to me to be an accurate presentation of the minimal facts thesis.

Well then, how about a similar essay from AnswersInGenesis.com? I'm sure you won't have a problem with that.

Oh, and thanks for zeroing in on that one link and ignoring the entire rest of my post. That's a great way to promote open and honest dialog.

First you claim a transparent methodology for determining truth doesn't exist. If we believe that, you have a bridge to sell us, remember? Then when you realize that's the ONLY reliable process for determining facts, you apply it to the resurrection and link to AiG. AiG doesn't even believe 11,000 years have transpired.

[Cerebrum123]

I'm going to have to bow out of this thread, and probably a few others for a while.

@ whag, if you don't understand the damage the eugenics has done, then only look to WWII. German eugenics and American eugenics were pretty much on the same page before the war. You can see eugenics type thinking in the pro-abortion(I will not call it "pro-choice") movement. The idea that if someone is going to be born "unfit", then they should be eliminated is quite common there.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Max Planck.

[whag]

@ whag, if you don't understand the damage the eugenics has done, then only look to WWII. German eugenics and American eugenics were pretty much on the same page before the war. You can see eugenics type thinking in the pro-abortion(I will not call it "pro-choice") movement. The idea that if someone is going to be born "unfit", then they should be eliminated is quite common there.

Genocide doesn't make evolution false. You're still a primate all the same.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Max Planck.

I agree. It's not about making them see the light but convincing them through evidence. The new generation advances evolution by asking the questions the previous generations didnt think to ask. This is all very much in line with the scientific method. By quoting it as anti-science--because you believe it leads to eugenics!--you thoroughly undermine your already pathetic attempts to evangelize. You're looking for weak minds.

"Children are perfectly happy counting through the number 13. Children aren’t afraid to walk under ladders. They see a black cat cross their path and they say ‘look! kitty, kitty’ and want to pet it, not run in the other direction. Children are not the problem here."

Neil DeGrasse Tyson

[shunyadragon]

I'm going to have to bow out of this thread, and probably a few others for a while.

@ whag, if you don't understand the damage the eugenics has done, then only look to WWII. German eugenics and American eugenics were pretty much on the same page before the war. You can see eugenics type thinking in the pro-abortion(I will not call it "pro-choice") movement. The idea that if someone is going to be born "unfit", then they should be eliminated is quite common there.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Max Planck.

There is the fact you are ignoring, eugenics, IS NOT SCIENCE. It is the misapplication of science.

[whag]

There is the fact you are ignoring, eugenics, IS NOT SCIENCE. It is the misapplication of science.

even if it was IN LINE with scientific principles and bore fruit, it wouldn't invalidate what we know about evolution.

But it's worse than that. Cerebrum doesn't accept that an eon has transpired. How to correct an error of that magnitude without destroying his faith? His heels are understandably dug in.