For those who want to see (a mediocre) example of the simplest of genetic algorithms look here: http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...87#post2276887
Printable View
For those who want to see (a mediocre) example of the simplest of genetic algorithms look here: http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...87#post2276887
...and the burden of proof on God's non-existence lies on the people who claim God doesn't exist. The only people who don't have a burden of proof are those who say: "Maybe". Everyone else, on both sides of the debate, has closed their mind before they've started.Quote:
The burden of proof on God's existence lies on the people who claim God exists.
So perhaps the agnostics amongst us are those most open-mided?
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
The word agnostic comes from the greek a without gnostic knowledge
It's an admittance of lacking the required knowledge to make a decision. When Huxley coined the term it was a personal reflection of his inability to agree with anything without conclusive proof.
Where one cannot have an opinion or voice (which is true of agnosticism as it relates to religion) then as Wittgenstein said:
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"
Everyone is without knowledge when it comes to the existence of a deity as there is no hard evidence for or against such a being. So why should someone who understands this and refuses to make a choice based on faith alone be ridiculed? Especially when they are being very wise in admitting they do not know everything.
It is my personal opinion and understanding that a human being will make many 'leaps of faith' throughout his lifetime; generally without knowing that their beliefs, and their actions are a direct result of (non-religious) faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Sure, those who follow religious teachings profess that they have a faith. I understand this as an admittance that they can't prove the existence of their God(s) but they believe it anyway for some metaphysical explanation. In fact most of those who I know who say they are religious would also accept they can't prove to another individual the existence of God.
Are they agnostic? I don't think so. Do they lack any more understanding of the world than a classical agnostic? Certainly not.
Of course they are not agnostic as they still believe in a deity! An agnostic believes there is neither evidence for or against such a being.
You still however have not answered the question of why an agnostic should be ridiculed for requiring evidence
The people I am talking about accept there is no evidence either way, and agree that it's a question of faith. Perhaps you'd like to reread my last post?Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Regardless of whether you read my last post or otherwise; agnosticism is an easy way out requiring no logic, no empricism. It's a cheat and nothing more. If you are prepared to label yourself as such I strongly suggest you make an effort to read a little of Bertrand Russel's work who supports your sort of reasoning.
If you want to go down this argument I hope you've read a little of Kant, and Popper, or you, yourself, have strong enough reasoning to argue with either of the above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Have you asked for evidence proving the Earth circles the sun? Or do you accept it on trust? Have you asked for evidence that the earth is an ellipsoid? Or do you accept it on trust?Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
I'm sure you see my point . . .
Saying that evidence cannot be forthcoming is simply, in my opinion, a cop-out. There are many things in your life (like the love of a partner) that require faith and trust. I do not see you purporting to throw these things out of your life.
I think there's some confusion thrown up by the use of the term agnostic. As Yrwyddfa pointed out, it literally translates to 'without knowledge' but when we use it in the religious sense we generally mean 'haven't decided'.
So when you ask 'Are they agnostic?' it depends what you mean by agnostic. If you're using the literal meaning then we're all agnostic, whether we're religious or not, because none of actually KNOW whether God/Allah/The flying spaghetti monster exists. If you're using the religious meaning then, no, of course 'those who follow religious teachings ' aren't agnostic, because they clearly have decided. As have those who profess 'There is no God'
I see no problem with the position that 'I don't KNOW this to be true but believe it to be so'. And if that's the case I don't see why, while acknowledging that 'I don't know', I should be denied the opportunity to argue for the beliefs I hold.
I myself don't KNOW if there are deities and as such will not make a decision based entirely on faith as that decision could be wrong. Once again yrywddfa you are ridiculing the agnostics for their choice by calling it a "cop-out". Why can you not accept that a person can objectively look at both sides of the story and decide there is no evidence for or against such a being?
Simple really; there is no objective evidence for or against. You cannot look objectively at this issue - it's impossible. Yet, you - the agnostic forum - still want to have a say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
In my, humble, opinion: don't.
We know: (i) You don't know, (ii) You don't care (iii) You have no opinion that counts.
Especially (iii) btw: You cannot have an opinion, if you call yourself agnostic, if there is no objectivity. It's part of the tribe you call agnosticism.
If this upsets you then look somewhere else because you're not an agnostic. If you're happy to subscribe to this then shut up.
All in a modicum of jest you understand - after all it is Christmas (but then you don't celebrate that either, do you?)
;)
not conclusive evidence, certainly. But there's a great deal of circumstantial evidence to suuport either side if the debate. And I still don't think that acknowledging the possibility you may be wrong in your opinion negates your ability to have one.Quote:
there is no objective evidence for or against.
For example, surely it's a fundamental of science that there is always room for the currently held knowledge to be innaccurate and to strive to improve the model. An agnostic stance, in other words. Does that mean science can have no valid opinion?
No. I meant objective and still do. There is nothing that can be observed about whether there is a creator (or otherwise) that is objective. If there were then we might be able to hypothesize and draw conclusionsQuote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I've never seen any. It could be just me I guess. Can you post some links to verify this?Quote:
But there's a great deal of circumstantial evidence to suuport either side if the debate.
'Agnostic' was first coined by Huxley who (in a more defnied manner) believed nothing which cannot be demonstrated by the senses. So, by definition, metaphysical beings do not exist in a physical state and thus cannot be demonstrated by the senses. (Of course some will argue that a creator has intervened in human history, so such a being would be capable of physical sense) The opinion that agnostics hold are that they cannot have an opinion, nor belief in anything that cannot be felt, seen, heard or touched. I haven't accused anyone of agnosticism, here. I haven't defined what is that people think they believe - I have simply pointed out the meaning of a word and how that must apply to this argument. Most people who call themselves agnostics are really atheists, anyway.Quote:
And I still don't think that acknowledging the possibility you may be wrong in your opinion negates your ability to have one.
Science is based on the mathematical deductions from (mostly) physical observation. This is called reasoning And it's been very successfulQuote:
For example, surely it's a fundamental of science that there is always room for the currently held knowledge to be innaccurate and to strive to improve the model. An agnostic stance, in other words.
Yes it means that science can hold nor offer an opinion. If there is room for an opinion it's belief and not science. You can't say "I scientifically believe that the Earth is the centre of the universe" and then expect people to accept that "Hey, it's just his opinion"Quote:
Does that mean science can have no valid opinion?
Yep, that's why I was uncomfortable with the use of the word agnostic, it has ramifications, particularly in the context of religion. But I'd suggest there is a world of difference between stating "I have no opinion" and "I have an opinion but am willing to acknowledge I could be wrong". The first is (usually) a cop out, the second is a maintaining mind which is open to change in light of future observations and discoveries.Quote:
The opinion that agnostics hold are that they cannot have an opinion
I could see where you're coming from that the former have nothing valid to say (though I'd stop short of actually agreeing) but I'd definitely disagree if you're saying tha latter have nothing valid to say. Everyone has arrived at a position (even if it's 'don't know') in any debate and knowing how they got to arrived at that position can inform and change the position of others... so to me everyone's voice is valuable. I do agree though that stating 'I have no opinion' and failing to offer anything further in the way of justification of that position isn't particularly useful - but then again neither are 'there is a god' or 'there is no god' unless they're backed up by argument as to how that position has been reached.
I must admit, I wonder about religious agnostics myself. I don't think many deities are going reward bet hedgeing come judgement day/gehenna/the final pasta.
As for circumstantial evidence of a deity or not, I'd argue that the very existence of life, the very existence of a universe, the very existence of anything, in fact, can be held as circumstantial evidence of a deity if you're of that persuasion. The fact that nobodies heard from them for over 2000 years (or whatever time period a given religion espouses - probably less in the case of the FSM :) ) is pretty good circumstantial evidence that there isn't one. The fact that this evidence is circumstantial is important though as it means any debate cannot result in a absolute truth, one way or the other, but that doesn't mean the debate isn't worth having.
All I'm saying is that if someone calls themself an 'agnostic' then they must accept that can never have an opinion about anything which cannot be sensed by the physical senses.
I am fully aware that those who call themselves agnostic rarely rarely have any idea of what it actually means.
Which gets us back to a previous argument: How does one go about proving something isn't there? Absense of proof is not proof of absense and vice versa.
Basically you can come up with any number of theories ranging from the big fungus in the sky to spaghetti universes and back, claim it's the truth and those who don't believe it should submit proof as to why it's not true.
This is the whole premise turned around, isn't it? The onus is -in my opinion- always on the one claiming that something does exist. All the rest have indeed the luxury of denying and/or claiming having no adequate knowledge. Why should the latter group be the ones to refute the 'truth'? They're after all not the ones that stated it in the first place.
Science works as thus: you start with a theory, you try to test it out (falsify it) and if all methods of testing are exhausted you either conclude the theory correct (or not falsifiable) or that you can't further test-proof it thus saying its correctness hangs in the balance until someone devises a better method.
You never walk up to someone else saying 'here it is, now you prove it's not true'. At least in theory...
If we're talking about the divine and the creator of things, the best I can come up with is that there's no sufficient proof to either falsify it or prove it. So I tend to err on the side of caution and maintain a position where I don't have to prove the non-existence.
Why? Because you simply can't prove non-existence.
It is entirely possible that tricorns exist. It is also entirely possible that they don't.
Proof of the former is simple: you produce one. Proof of the latter is impossible as it is not sufficient to point to an empty space and say "see that? There's verifiable proof of the non-being of tricorns."
I think to put a burden of proof on one side or another is a hiding to nowhere. Far better to get all sides to put up whatever proof/evidence/opinions/arguments they can to support their view and then everyone can make up their own mind based on the body of information available. The problem with trying to place a burden of proof is that it tends to lead to 'This is what I believe, prove me wrong!' While that can be an interesting challenge it isn't very enlightening and is unlikely to affect my (or anyone else's) opinion.
IMO the point of any debate isn't to 'prove' one premise over another, it's to sway your audience's opinion in your favour and thus have them accept your premise as the more likely one. Proving you premise beyond doubt is simply a powerful mechanism to achieving that, though a surprisingly difficult one to achieve.
Yrfwadadadadadadada - If we're using Huxleys definition of agnostic (I admit I've never read it outside your posts though :blush: ) I'm with you 100%. :thumb: To refuse to entertain the very possibilty of a concept because it cannot be objectively proved is just another form of closed mindedness. Always entertain the possibility... that's my motto :)
But there are an infinite number of possibilities... are you entertaining them all?Quote:
Always entertain the possibility... that's my motto
Coming from a scientist . . . :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
;)
Of course the scientific point of view is that we will only entertain those possibilities that can be disproven which significantly narrows the field; creationism and alien intervention will not be among the candidates.
Yes :( And after 38 years, I have barely gotten into the C's. Right now, I am worshipping the great God Cabbage who giveth us the winds.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
I can be a very entertaining chap at times...Quote:
are you entertaining them all?
Don't forget to add quantum mechanics, and string theory to that list. As well as anything else that applies under Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle . . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
I’m afraid I don’t understand your point. Surely you are not saying that quantum mechanics is strictly a matter of faith and therefore can not be examined by the scientific community? These are certainly well postulated hypotheses that lend themselves to proper examination. They can be disproven and people try all the time, but so far have failed.Quote:
Don't forget to add quantum mechanics, and string theory to that list. As well as anything else that applies under Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle . . . .
The theories of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle have been around for a while and there is plenty of evidence that they are close to correct. Scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) is an example of a device that would never have been developed without knowledge of quantum mechanic principles.
There is a clear distinction between religion and science. Religion cannot be disproved so cannot be considered by science, the postulates of quantum mechanics can be.
Science cannot answer the question of whether there is a supreme being directing the evolution of the universe, but can observe that evolution and develop theories that will successfully predict the future of that evolution.
I really don’t understand your objections to science. I’m speculating that you have a faith in something (religious or otherwise) and feel frustrated that it is not taken as seriously matters of science are by many.
Yes, I've done a little more reading around qm and I agree, now, that some of the principles can be proved/observed by experimentation.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
This is quite true.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
YupQuote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Who said I objected to science? Compared to a layman with a similarly uneducated background I think I have quite a good grasp on what it is that science is, and where it has come from.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
For instance, the scientific method (something we've already discussed elsewhere) was developed by Muslim scholars way way before the birth of Christ; they dismissed it because of inconsistent results (around 4th Cent BC) and the growth of Ancient Greek philosophy. Aristotle, of course, was completely wrong: he was a natural philosopher who believed that anything could be described and verified through pure thought - that there was no need for experimentation. Once the pan-European Catholic Church decreed that Aristotle was correct then that was the model of the universe supported by the church, the Pope, and ultimately (I presume) God.
Now, in school, I was taught that Galileo was the first person to revive the current scientific methodology thinking. He was indeed a patron of it, and was the first to grasp it's merits, and appy such a methodology to all of his work. But the guy who 're-discovered' it was a little known chap called William Gilbert of Colchester. In his book,De Magnete, he distances himself from Aristotle by being the first person to clearly set out, in print, the testing of hypotheses by rigorous experimentation. As it happens, even the name electricity was coined by Gilbert when he discovered the first electric field: rubbing two pieces of amber together (as the Greeks discovered) attracts more things than just iron and other metals; the Greek for amber is elektron
Until very recently, I, as well as my physics teacher, was under the impression that it was Galileo. A 'fact' I took on faith, not on reasoning, nor argument. How many other things are there being 'taught' that are muddled, incomplete, or plainly wrong.
Everything that I was taught I accepted on faith. So did you, and so did and does every other student in the world. It is perhaps fortunate that there are vastly less poor teachers, than there are good ones.
Anthropological faith, and science are not as divisible as you like to make out. The simple fact that the scientific revolution (mostly) occured in England was because England, through it's protestantisms, allowed free scientific and academic thought, and publication. The Catholic Church, of course, did not. There is a case for saying that the scientific revolution got underway as a direct result of the creation of the Church Of England, and Anglicism.
I presume that you believe that only 400 years down the line we are now more 'enlightened' and not subject to the whims of human vagueries. I think that view is wrong (and I can't independently verify it, either)
Now we've got that out of the way, let's have a conversation about designing experiments to verfiy string theory, shall we?
Thank you for the History lesson :thumb: (really)
If you are saying that everything in life is to some degree a matter of faith, then I have to agree.
For instance, I have faith that the Earth orbits the sun and not the other way around. You could have the opposite faith, but then I have a much high chance of being correct because of the preponderance of evidence that my theory is correct. The odds are so much in my favor that most would assume that I am “correct”. But it doesn't really matter since my theory can be used to successfully predict the future positions of planets and smaller objects in our solar system. Perhaps yours does too, but then it would be much a more complicated theory I think.
There are scientific theories that don’t benefit from such a high level of confidence and the relatively new string theory is one such. Right now it is a plausible theory that fits observed data, but is far from being complete. Eventually it will make a prediction that has not been observed and the scientific community will attempt to observe the prediction. I personally don’t know much about string theory perhaps NoteMe does.
I still think that you harbor some hostility toward either science or the scientific community, perhaps you were frightened by a man in a white coat as a child ;)
It's hard not to detect a modicum of sarcasm, here . . . .;)Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
That's exactly what I believe, and for me, includes the discovery of knowledge and truth - of which science is the main proponent.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
I, too, believe that the Earth orbits the sun.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
The less confidence there is, surely - by definition, the more faith one has to have!Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Nicely sidestepped. I picked string theory because it's extremely difficult (if not impossible with today's technology) to prove by experimentation. I'm sure you're right that one day it will be demonstrated one way or the other, but at this stage it's holds the same stage as a believing in a creator.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Nah. Just like a good argument and scientists are the most fun to play with . . . .;)Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
I am Chatholic. I Have never believed in god. I dont believe in religion. Yet i influenced by Wicca and Budhism
I haven't heard of any theory successfully predicting how a creature would evolve. Do you have a source? (not meant as a challenge - I'd be genuinely interested)Quote:
Science cannot answer the question of whether there is a supreme being directing the evolution of the universe, but can observe that evolution and develop theories that will successfully predict the future of that evolution.
There were no Muslim scholars before the birth of christ, Muhammed was born in the 600's ;) . I suspect you're right that the scientific method being older though and I agree with the point you're making. We take a huge amount of information (not just scientific) to be true without going back and questioning it. How many people were taught that the ancients thought the world was flat and revolved around the sun? That's not correct, they'd mapped the paths of the closer planets and had even measured the worlds circumference. Mind you, Columbus apparently thought the world was pear shaped (erm, actually maybe that was a prediction rather than a belief :) )Quote:
the scientific method (something we've already discussed elsewhere) was developed by Muslim scholars way way before the birth of Christ
It is called the theory of evolution: natural selection.Quote:
I haven't heard of any theory successfully predicting how a creature would evolve.
But that's never been used to predict how a creature was going to evolve. It simply attempts to explain how creatures have evolved. The past/future tense is a pretty important distinction.
And how they will continue to evolve.Quote:
It simply attempts to explain how creatures have evolved.
We know the mechanisms behind evolution. We will never be able to predict the evolutionary course of a particular entity since that course depends on future events and we will never be able to predict the future.
Even figuring out the course of evolution in fairly simple programs is exceedingly difficult. In many cases, we can determine what endpoint we expect to reach, and if we don't reach it we can go back and try to figure out why we didn't. This is how you would test a GA (swap one little > for a <, and boy do you get some weird results). However, if you are then going to use the GA to work on a difficult problem, you have no way of knowing where it will go. After all, if you know the answer, why ask the question?Quote:
haven't heard of any theory successfully predicting how a creature would evolve. Do you have a source? (not meant as a challenge - I'd be genuinely interested)
Currently, I have a program that evolves predictive equations. I can feed in known data with a known relationship, but only as a test. When I set it to work on a real-world problem, if it finds a relationship, I can't be certain that the relationship it found is meaningful. Furthermore, if no good relationship is found, is that because no relationship exists, was the input incorrect, or is there a bug in the program? The testing can be a real nightmare. I'm learning some general rules as to what types of solutions this program will have trouble with, and some things that may apply to evolution in general, but if I were to be asked, "What relationship will this program find?" I don't think I will ever be able to predict that.
Yes, but one of the sticks that the science lobby often uses to beat the faith lobby with goes something like: Scientific observation allows me to make predictions which can subsequently be proven to be true. In fact, this is at the heart of all of science's useful applications. If someone had managed to do something similar with evolution it would go a long way toward blowing the creationism and intelligent creation theories out of the water. As it is, any of these three theories can be tweaked and adjusted to explain away the observations that have already been made.
I was surprised by your original assertion that we could "develop theories that will successfully predict the future of that evolution" but not entirely unbeliveing. Perhaps with some simple organisms under strictly controlled conditions we might be able to do exactly that. I'd be fascinated to see the results of such an experiment. :)
I said that? When? What was I talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
One of the problems with evolution is that we use it in everyday speech. For instance, we could say that this thread has evolved, but that would not be quite the same evolution that we are talking about in any particular post. This confuses the heck out of things.
Figuring out what the result of future evolution will be may not be impossible, but I think it currently is beyond our abilities. While the mechanism is simple, the path is chaotic, and unpredictable.
Therefore, we may never be able to predict the result of future evolution (even in a controlled setting). However, that's not really what science requires.
You state:
This doesn't mean that we have to be able to predict the outcome of a chaotic process. That can be demonstrated to be impossible, and there are many types of problems that fall into that category. However, there are predictions that can be made about the state of a chaotic system at a later date, and these can be verified.Quote:
Scientific observation allows me to make predictions which can subsequently be proven to be true.
For instance, in my evolutionary program, I am trying to evolve an equation that will match a certain line. This could be done easily by simply drawing it. However, if I were to simply draw it, I could predict ahead of time that the line would appear. True, but trivial. The point of the program is that I set up an evolutionary engine, and I am predicting that the evolutionary engine will be able to draw the line.
If evolution were a truly random process, the chances of that line being drawn can be measured, and they are VERY small. In fact, for some of the tests, the chance that iteration X will produce a matching line is so small that I don't know the name of the number. Something like 1 in a gazillion. Therefore, if the evolutionary engine does produce the line by iteration X, and does so every time, then I can say that evolution is non-random. Unfortunately, if I were to give the engine a new set of numbers, where the relationship is unknown, I can not say what final line will result, all I can say is that the result will be non-random.
Thus I can predict the nature of the process, but not the result of the process. This is a good thing. Otherwise, we would know the result before we asked the question, which makes the question a little pointless.
In the light of current observations, evolutionary theory (of which I've written software etc etc) is of a somewhat peculiar stance.
Emergence seems, perhaps only to me, to be the best explanation of what it is that does on.
I was addressing Moeur rather than you, Shaggy. I took his statement from earlier in this thread to mean that the results of evolution had been predicted and then turned out as predicted, which seemed surprising but not unbelievable. If it had been done I'd have loved to see the results.Quote:
I said that? When? What was I talking about?
I agree. But, assuming evolution is one of those problems (which is probably debatable) and in the context of a debate on whether creationsim or evolution is true, doesn't that mean that the scientific method can never offer a firm answer - because it's results can never be fully tested?Quote:
This doesn't mean that we have to be able to predict the outcome of a chaotic process. That can be demonstrated to be impossible, and there are many types of problems that fall into that category.
My point was that saying (and I'm not sure you have), 'this is the theory and all the observed results tally with it' isn't really enough to espouse evolution over creationism because they can both do that. So can intelligent design and so can the spaghetti monster.
What's the difference? I'd have thought emergence was a part of evolutionary theory but I might be missunderstanding your meaning.Quote:
In the light of current observations, evolutionary theory (of which I've written software etc etc) is of a somewhat peculiar stance.
Emergence seems, perhaps only to me, to be the best explanation of what it is that does on.
Oh good, I didn't say that.
I suspect that there are a large pool of things that we can demonstrate for several 'canned' situations, but can never prove for the general case. Whether evolution works, can be proven, but only as long as we accept that whatever result we get is 'working'. My program will evolve a relationship between variables and an output. However, that effectively means that there is a complex correlation, and correlation is NOT causation, even if it is complex. I can never prove the causality of the relationship that evolution found. However, I CAN prove that evolution found a relationship.
So what does that mean about evolution? Well, it means that a system can evolve towards a given endpoint. I think that's about all we can say in the natural world, but I feel that that is all we NEED to say. If we can show that evolution is capable of solving a certain problem, so long as it is solvable; and we can show that evolution WILL solve the problem so long as it has the means, then we can say for any system that is capable of evolving: Here is the result so far. We know this is a soltution to some problem, what was the problem? Frankly, I don't think we have a good answer for that last question.
By the way, in Biology, this is called "The ghost of competitions past." People discuss the current relationships within a community, and try to figure out why they arose, but nobody can prove it one way or the other.