The Cardinal Rules of Logic

[Neanderthal]

Hi LOR guys. I have a proposition for you ( but since I'm quite new here, it may have been up for discussion a gazillion times and rejected without me knowing): why don't some of you splendid guys make a Reason101 page along with the LOR rules. Ten bullet points where you explain what a proof may be and why there should be some of that if somebody is making extraordinary claims, some of the great pitfalls of discussion and debate, and so on. Like this poor sod you are wrestling with here: he is either a troll or he has absolutely no clue whatsoever of what proof is, what it means and why there should be any. He will absolutely not be enlightened by this discussion... there is absolutely no hope in sight.

I must admit it is great fun to read, but it is also painful and it seem to me a waste of time. If you continue debating because it is fun then I beg forgiveness for misunderstanding and I'll be on my way. But if this type of discussion is "slightly amusing, but mostly painful" (Ford Fairlane) then you could simply say: " we refer to the Reason101 page, paragraph 3, line 5 which says: A proof is..... You have made an error of reason, therefore we will not discuss this matter with you anymore before you show that you have read and understood Reason101 page, paragraph 3, line 5".

Probably no Nobel prize for me for this one, but I have to try.

 

[SirYeen]

Re: Worlds first recorded debate......2500 BC

Hi LOR guys. I have a proposition for you ( but since I'm quite new here, it may have been up for discussion a gazillion times and rejected without me knowing): why don't some of you splendid guys make a Reason101 page along with the LOR rules. Ten bullet points where you explain what a proof may be and why there should be some of that if somebody is making extraordinary claims, some of the great pitfalls of discussion and debate, and so on. Like this poor sod you are wrestling with here: he is either a troll or he has absolutely no clue whatsoever of what proof is, what it means and why there should be any. He will absolutely not be enlightened by this discussion... there is absolutely no hope in sight.

I must admit it is great fun to read, but it is also painful and it seem to me a waste of time. If you continue debating because it is fun then I beg forgiveness for misunderstanding and I'll be on my way. But if this type of discussion is "slightly amusing, but mostly painful" (Ford Fairlane) then you could simply say: " we refer to the Reason101 page, paragraph 3, line 5 which says: A proof is..... You have made an error of reason, therefore we will not discuss this matter with you anymore before you show that you have read and understood Reason101 page, paragraph 3, line 5".

Probably no Nobel prize for me for this one, but I have to try.

That's a great idea. Alas I'm not fit for the job. Also we need somebody who makes a fallacy series. Similar to YANS but youtube format.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

This does sound like a good idea.

MOD NOTE: Creating new thread

Perhaps it should be a collaborative effort?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I aprove that motion.

 

[Squawk]

Hmm. Cali's creationist canards springs to mind. Not quite what you're after, but it's pretty damn close, and fucking awesome to boot.

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2567

 

[Neanderthal]

That one is great, but way too much information. None of these trolls will read it. What I was thinking of was 10 bulletpoints max, consentrated information, easy to understand and "mellow" wording . Not an easy task but doable.

 

[Neanderthal]

I 'll boldly start, and hope knowledgable people will pitch in.

On evidence, facts and proofs.
Proof does not exist in science - only in mathematics.
Science and reason is about logic and convincing evidence.
Evidence is pieces of information/results that strengthens a claim/hypothesis.
Good evidence comes with a user manual, the makes other able to reproduce the same result.
Facts does not exist, but some things can be elevated to fact status if the consensus is that the evidence is strong enough.

Good evidence:
This is my result. This is my data, and this is what I did to produce this result with the help of my data. My interpretation of the results is that it disproves claim X (or strengthens claim Y).

Bad evidence:
Because it says so, in my interpretation of an ancient text.
Mrs. X is really smart, and she believes the same as me.
Some scientists believe the same as me.
There are 1000 peer reviewed articles that says X. I found one that says Y. Therefore X is false.

Theories granted fact status:
Because of massive support of good peer reviewed evidence. Evidence can be correlated with good peer reviewed evidence from other scientific disciplines. It explains all of the data. It is predictive, and numerous successful predictions have been made. It can easily be falsified, but nothing have come close yet.


On hypotheses, models and scientific theories.
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon or observation. It bears no weight if it cannot be tested or falsified.
A scientific model is a structure for describing data from an observation or phenomenon. The model can be used to predict outcomes and results.
A scientific theory is a scientific model that has been granted elevated status. It has passed all tests, is supported by good peer reviewed evidence and have made peer reviewed predictions. It is open to be falsified.

Good hypothesis:
Species have evolved from a common ancestor. It can be tested by finding fossils of transitional forms of two distinct species. It can be falsified by finding fossils of supposed transitional forms and modern species in the same geological strata.

Bad hypothesis:
I'm the sole survivor from a plane crash because God saved me. Bad because it is not testable and not falsifiable.
The bible is the word of God. Bad because it is not testable and not falsifiable.

Examples of scientific theories:
The theory of relativity.
The theory of electromagnetism.
The theory of evolution by natural selection.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Proof does not exist in science - only in mathematics.

It should read "Absolute Proof does not exist in science - only in mathematics."
There are proofs in science, but none that can not be wrong.

Facts does not exist, but some things can be elevated to fact status if the consensus is that the evidence is strong enough.

Facts exist, they are just data points. And data points might not be what you think they are.
The statement that "If you drop a ball on earth it will fall down" is NOT a fact.
However the statement "Every time I have dropped a ball it has fallen down" is a fact.

Theories granted fact status:
Because of massive support of good peer reviewed evidence. Evidence can be correlated with good peer reviewed evidence from other scientific disciplines. It explains all of the data. It is predictive, and numerous successful predictions have been made. It can easily be falsified, but nothing have come close yet.

Theories are never change into facts. Theories are macro groups of models (theoretical, conceptual explanations) relating to a particular phenomena. Models do not change into data points.
Example of a dead theory:
The aether theory, which encompassed things like how objects moved trough the aether, how light propagates trough the aether, how the aether flows. It has all gone to shambles when the aether was proved not to exist, no aether, no objects moving trough the aether, no light moving through the aether, no aether flow and so on.

 

[Neanderthal]

Proof does not exist in science - only in mathematics.

It should read "Absolute Proof does not exist in science - only in mathematics."
There are proofs in science, but none that can not be wrong.

I don't agree. There are no absolute proofs in mathematics, only proofs. I see what you mean, but my point here is to make broad guidelines for lay people. I have degrees in mathematics and physics, so I know a bit about theories, models, good and bad science stuff but I'm not very versed in retorics and debate technicalities.

Facts does not exist, but some things can be elevated to fact status if the consensus is that the evidence is strong enough.

Facts exist, they are just data points. And data points might not be what you think they are.
The statement that "If you drop a ball on earth it will fall down" is NOT a fact.
However the statement "Every time I have dropped a ball it has fallen down" is a fact.

But "a fact" for lay people is something that he is absolutely shure of, like "god exists". My point is that the only time you may call something "a fact" is when you have evidence and strong concensus - and maybe bnot even then.

Theories granted fact status:
Because of massive support of good peer reviewed evidence. Evidence can be correlated with good peer reviewed evidence from other scientific disciplines. It explains all of the data. It is predictive, and numerous successful predictions have been made. It can easily be falsified, but nothing have come close yet.

Theories are never change into facts. Theories are macro groups of models (theoretical, conceptual explanations) relating to a particular phenomena. Models do not change into data points.
Example of a dead theory:
The aether theory, which encompassed things like how objects moved through the aether, how light propagates trough the aether, how the aether flows. It has all gone to shambles when the aether was proved not to exist, no aether, no objects moving through the aether, no light moving through the aether, no aether flow and so on.

I agree. But when you really want to piss of creationists, you call evolution a fact. I'm merely pointing out that few ideas in science has such a broad except as e.g. evolution, because of massive amounts of good evidence and so on.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I don't agree. There are no absolute proofs in mathematics, only proofs.

Then you don't know mathematics.

I see what you mean, but my point here is to make broad guidelines for lay people. I have degrees in mathematics and physics, so I know a bit about theories, models, good and bad science stuff but I'm not very versed in retorics and debate technicalities.
(...)
But "a fact" for lay people is something that he is absolutely shure of, like "god exists". My point is that the only time you may call something "a fact" is when you have evidence and strong concensus - and maybe bnot even then.
(...)
I agree. But when you really want to piss of creationists, you call evolution a fact. I'm merely pointing out that few ideas in science has such a broad except as e.g. evolution, because of massive amounts of good evidence and so on.

Anything worth doing is worth doing right. If you are not going to bother, then I sugest you don't do it at all.

 

[Neanderthal]

I don't agree. There are no absolute proofs in mathematics, only proofs.

Then you don't know mathematics.

Yes , I do. Are you kidding me?

I see what you mean, but my point here is to make broad guidelines for lay people. I have degrees in mathematics and physics, so I know a bit about theories, models, good and bad science stuff but I'm not very versed in retorics and debate technicalities.
(...)
But "a fact" for lay people is something that he is absolutely shure of, like "god exists". My point is that the only time you may call something "a fact" is when you have evidence and strong concensus - and maybe bnot even then.
(...)
I agree. But when you really want to piss of creationists, you call evolution a fact. I'm merely pointing out that few ideas in science has such a broad except as e.g. evolution, because of massive amounts of good evidence and so on.

Anything worth doing is worth doing right. If you are not going to bother, then I sugest you don't do it at all.

So, if I want to inform lay persons about the broad picture I must write a 4 volume treatise on the subject? Are you kidding me?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

So, if I want to inform lay persons about the broad picture I must write a 4 volume treatise on the subject? Are you kidding me?

No I am not kidding you. Most of the hoghwash comes from an inacurate dumed down understanding of science. You may see it as inocent but the layman have away of grabing your anaolgies by the balls and distort it in ways beyound that which is sensimble. And instead of helping I have to get myself into the extra trouble to explain why those twists doesn't actually have anything to do with the real science, because of something silly you said.

 

[Neanderthal]

Oh, I'm very sorry. Must be tough battling these clueless creationists. You are one of the lucky ones that survived, aren't you! Get off your high horse.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Oh, I'm very sorry. Must be tough battling these clueless creationists. You are one of the lucky ones that survived, aren't you! Get off your high horse.

May I remind you that the point of all this is to distinguish good reason from bad, you are not going to achieve that with more bad information. So step back, take a deep breath and don't take this personaly. Learn to take some criticism, don't put yourself in the position where you need more of this sort of advice then to actually be in the position of trying to pass it down to others.
We all make mistakes, it is ok and nobody is looking down on you, now don't make this into a dick measuring competition.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Let's try to be a little bit more constructive everyone.

How about we try posting revised listings, with explanations for our entries listed at the bottom? Once we have a few versions going we can perhaps discuss their relative merits. Maybe make a separate polling thread.