Ikari said:
Some finite number along with a handful of base assumptions.
Theories, taken as models, can be indefinitely modified depending on which base assumptions one takes. Quine pointed out that nothing is sacrosanct in this point; we might one day find some reason to give up one or more axioms of logic (indeed, the dialetheists are making a good case that we ought to give up the law of non-contradiction...we'll see whether they gain any traction in 20 years or so).
Ikari said:
But this is no different than radioactive decay or any other form of energy emmission which is measured.
Yes, precisely no different.
Ikari said:
Yet here you claim that the inference of the atom is correct, yet the inference on the age of the earth could be wrong. At least try to aim for a touch of consistency in your arguments.
I think both inferences are probably correct, but both could be wrong. That's not inconsistent. The original point was to reply to the OP that while it sounds good to come onto boards like these and demand evidence from YECers, it's actually rather feeble to do so, since YECers accept all the same evidence anyone else does. They give a radically different interpretation. The point under contention is not what the evidence is, but what we are to take the evidence as saying.
I'm saying this because I think YEC is stupid and should be defeated. But until you've clarified where the argument actually is, you cannot successfully argue. Until you can see the target clearly, you cannot hit it.
Ikari said:
Your entire thing IS the trickster defense. Some god or deity is tricking us. That's the trickster defense.
No. I repeat:
Ash said:
There's nothing in what I said that requires a "trickster" defense. It could be that the facts of the universe would incline non-biased human beings to believe in YEC, but most of us are in the grip of some theory or other that keeps us from seeing the clear and simple truth.
The trickster defense posits the notion that there is active deceit going on, of the sort that con men or stage magicians practice. I need nothing like that; it could be that we are deceiving ourselves, and God is simply disinclined to do anything about it. Perhaps God holds that human free will is paramount, and so despite a great desire to have us see the truth, is unwilling to interfere in our self deception. God may be in the position of a parent who sees an otherwise successful adult child make a horrible and life-changing decision. The parent may try to persuade or cajole, or even prevail upon friends to help, but ultimately, he or she can do nothing, because the child is free to make their own decisions. Indeed, the force of human self-deception in history is so powerful, I cannot imagine why we wouldn't be a little in awe of it.
Ikari said:
Subjective; but if you really want to measure it then we hook electrodes to your head and measure brain activity and chemical levels.
I thought my claim was about how much I like Paraguay relative to Indonesia. Not about what chemicals and neurons are firing. Indeed, after careful examination, the words "I like Paraguay 200% more than Indonesia" don't make
any mention about chemicals or neurons. If you think my liking something is reducible to chemicals and neurons, then you're doing philosophy, and in any case, no remotely successful reductive account of the mind/brain relation exists.
Ash: 2) The square root of -1 is imaginary, but the square root of 1 is not.
Ikari: This is of course measured and defined
Really? Just what is being measured?
Ikari said:
Id est geometrical points. You know, there are supposed to be an infinite number of them on a line. But how would we measure any claim about there being some number of points?
Ikari said:
Again, just what is being measured?
Ikari said:
Those are all measurable systems. Thanks for proving my point.
Hardly anything is proven until you can show me what is being measured. I take measurement to entail a physically realized process. Your remarks about points vs. particles leads me to believe you make the same assumption. So, what is being measured in the cases above? Show me something physical--if for example you claim that we can measure whether 2 is a prime number or not, I'll expect you can also measure things like the mass of the number 2, it's location in space, and so on.
Ikari said:
Do people even take science anymore?
I don't know about 'people' but I've taken a great deal of science at the undergrad and graduate level from reputable western universities.
Ikari said:
The earth's age is a measurable quantity. Duh.
Really? How much mass does the earth's age have? What is its location in spacetime? Can you break me off a chunk, stick it in an envelope, and mail it to me?
My point is that what's being measure are other things (all of which do have mass, location, and so on), and then age is inferred. That inferrence requires certain background assumptions. If you change those background assumptions, you change what the evidence tells us. And which background assumptions we choose, we choose for philosophical reasons, not scientific ones. Indeed, I don't even know what it would mean to choose background assumptions on scientific reasons.
Ikari said:
Or we know time and we know certain decay rates and we know many other facts and numbers which allow us to accurately extract the age of the planet as well as the age of the universe.
This is consonant with the discussion above. But I don't know how this is a response to my point. You said:
Ikari said:
Once you claim something within the measurable realm, your claim can be verified.
To which I replied:
Ikari said:
May be false, depending on your definitions. One way to read that makes it practically a tautology. But if that's not how you mean it, it's also probably false. How would we verify, for instance, a claim that there are intelligent beings smaller than the Planck length?
I'm not sure what time and certain decay rates and many other facts and numbers which allow us to accurately extract the age of the planet as well as the age of the universe have to do with this point.
Ikari said:
No it isn't, it's science. Let's not be stupid.
Do you believe it's stupid to question assumptions? Do you believe it's stupid to try to get a clear picture of the overall contours of a debate?
Ikari said:
Philosophy is a powerful force and a necessary discipline.
Thanks. I agree. I say the same thing about science.
Ikari said:
Yet data is data, the numbers are the numbers; and if you want to make a claim you must have the numbers which support your claim. That's it.
I'm not sure what you mean.
Ikari said:
If you say the earth is 6000 years old, the age of the earth being a measurable system, you produce that number to back the claim. If the number says something else, you don't just get to say "oh well maybe some god is tricking us all" or make up other stuff. The data is the data, the truth is in the data, the numbers are the numbers. Your claim either pans out or it dies; all on the back of data.
This is unintelligible. YECers are producing a number--they say the number is ~6000 years. Are you saying they aren't telling us how old they think the earth is? Are you saying that, when challenged to put a number on the age of the earth, they claim there is a god who is tricking us all? I don't think they're doing any of those things.