7 ms·

How can something be both logically sound and violently at odds with reality? What you’re saying is that those who hold YEC beliefs have an inconsistent belief

by maria2 4y ago

How can something be both logically sound and violently at odds with reality? What you’re saying is that those who hold YEC beliefs have an inconsistent belief system, but the belief in YEC is constructed with valid arguments within that belief system. That’s like the opposite of logically sound.

lisper 4y ago
I should have qualified that with "violently at odds with the scientific view of reality" (I've gone back and edited my original comment). And it's not hard to see how this can happen. Quantum mechanics is pretty violently at odds with most people's intuitions. > those who hold YEC beliefs have an inconsistent belief system No, that is absolutely not what I am saying. Their belief system is, for the most part, logically sound, and so it is consistent. But it is violently at odds with science, and so they end up with conspiracy theories to explain why scientists believe in evolution so overwhelmingly. Conspiracy theories are improbable, but they are not inconsistent.
- mfer 4y ago
  > it is violently at odds with science What is science in this context? Is it the scientific method? Is it the popular view among scientists as a whole (many of whom are not experts in areas they don't work in)? Is it the view of scientists in a niche? What happens when scientists in a niche disagree (they do all the time)? I'm guessing you mean the popular view of scientists and most people see it conveyed through media, pop culture, etc. If physicists believe/agree with/state evolution what's the science foundation to look at them as an expert to trust? Would I trust a mechanical engineers view on circuit design because they are an engineer just like electrical engineers? Being curious I've read works from physicists who view an ancient universe and YEC (they really do exist). I've done this in good faith to try to understand how intelligent people with advanced degrees can come to different conclusions. I bring this up to show the complexity, views, and assumptions to what we quickly call science.
  - lisper 4y ago
    > I'm guessing you mean the popular view of scientists Yes, though your use of the word "popular" puts an unfair spin on it. There is overwhelming consensus (like 99%) among working biologists (who are in the best position to evaluate the evidence) that evolution is true. Yes, there can be complexity and nuance. But evolution is quite literally one of the least controversial issues in all of science.
    - gjsman-1000 4y ago
      There is one issue though - how many biologists are religious in any way? According to BioMed Central, biology has more atheists than any other field. So, either they are all convinced that religions are false - or they are hardly the most impartial deciders, and are great at making sure any newcomers don’t get different ideas. Just that fact would make a religious person laugh their head off at taking their perspective. Even from an atheistic perspective, can we rule out the possibility of an echo chamber?
      - lisper 4y ago
        > According to BioMed Central, biology has more atheists than any other field. According to Pew, the percentage of scientists in biology and medicine who profess no religious belief (41%) is lower than geology (47%) or physics (46%). So your claim is questionable at best. But for the sake of argument let's suppose it's true. So what? If you took a survey of astronomers I'm pretty sure you'd find that the vast majority of them are convinced that flat-eartherism is false. But that's not because they are prejudiced, it's because the astronomical evidence is overwhelmingly against the flat-earth hypothesis, and so it's hardly surprising that there aren't very many flat-earthers among people who study astronomy. Likewise, the biological evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution. That is why virtually all biologists, including the religious ones, believe it. BTW, notice that religious belief also declines with age. This supports the hypothesis that the more you learn the less likely you are to be religious. And that is evidence against your (implied) hypothesis that belief in evolution is the result of atheistic prejudice. --- [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-a...
mfer 4y ago
> violently at odds with reality Most of the views people have that they call reality are conclusions drawn from interpreting observations based on assumptions. They aren't repeatedly observable or a case where the observation is shows "reality" without interpretation based on assumptions. This is how people come to different conclusions. Learning to understand the different assumptions people make for all views was enlightening for me, personally.
aidenn0 4y ago
> How can something be both logically sound and violently at odds with reality? Firstly, logical soundness has little to do with reality; here's a logically sound argument: All mammals nurse their Young Ducks are mammals Therefore ducks nurse their young Obviously the statement "Ducks are mammals" is false, garbage-in, garbage-out, but the logic itself is sound. Now there was an entire field of philosophy called "Rationalism" that had a chief tenet that innate ideas and deductive reasoning was superior to sensory information. Rene Descartes formulated "I think therefore I am" because any empirical evidence of the existence of an item is suspect, but the logical statement that "if a thought occurs, then some being must be doing the thinking" is irrefutable. Be aware that there are many epistemologies besides empiricism.
- mbg721 4y ago
  A way this is pointed out in college logic courses is that in a truth-table, if your "if" statement is false, then all "thens" are true.
- maria2 4y ago
  “Ducks are mammals” contradicts “mammals have mammary glands”. When this type of contradiction happens, we call the logical system inconsistent.
  - aidenn0 4y ago
    It's still logically consistent if I claim that ducks have mammary glands, and any duck to the contrary has had them surgically removed by the government. You hand me an egg to put in my own incubator and raise myself? Well someone swapped the duck while I wasn't looking before the mammary glands developed.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 4y ago
    "mammals have mammary glands" was not a listed axiom. There are two axioms, of the forms: "all X perform action Y", and "All D are members of X". There conclusion of the form "All D perform action Y" is sound. The second axiom contradicts observation, but axioms don't have to correspond to reality for the logic to be sound.
SAI_Peregrinus 4y ago
The axioms can contradict a particular view of reality. The "scientific" axioms assume that objective reality can be observed (they reject solipsism). Solipsistic axioms don't accept this, only the state of one's own mind can be directly observed so it's the only objective reality under these axioms. Religions accept the existence of one or more gods as axioms, usually with some extra axioms declaring the properties of such god(s).
afiori 4y ago
A reasoning is logically sound if it applies valid reasoning rules on well formed propositions. Young earth can be both false and logically sound, in that case it would also be the case that some of its assumptions or models need to be wrong. Another example of a logically sound yet wrong theory is the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, if nothing else because by Fourier analysis it follows that you can approximate well any periodic orbit using enough epicycles.

by maria2 4y ago

lisper 4y ago

I should have qualified that with "violently at odds with the scientific view of reality" (I've gone back and edited my original comment). And it's not hard to see how this can happen. Quantum mechanics is pretty violently at odds with most people's intuitions. > those who hold YEC beliefs have an inconsistent belief system No, that is absolutely not what I am saying. Their belief system is, for the most part, logically sound, and so it is consistent. But it is violently at odds with science, and so they end up with conspiracy theories to explain why scientists believe in evolution so overwhelmingly. Conspiracy theories are improbable, but they are not inconsistent.

mfer 4y ago
> it is violently at odds with science What is science in this context? Is it the scientific method? Is it the popular view among scientists as a whole (many of whom are not experts in areas they don't work in)? Is it the view of scientists in a niche? What happens when scientists in a niche disagree (they do all the time)? I'm guessing you mean the popular view of scientists and most people see it conveyed through media, pop culture, etc. If physicists believe/agree with/state evolution what's the science foundation to look at them as an expert to trust? Would I trust a mechanical engineers view on circuit design because they are an engineer just like electrical engineers? Being curious I've read works from physicists who view an ancient universe and YEC (they really do exist). I've done this in good faith to try to understand how intelligent people with advanced degrees can come to different conclusions. I bring this up to show the complexity, views, and assumptions to what we quickly call science.
- lisper 4y ago
  > I'm guessing you mean the popular view of scientists Yes, though your use of the word "popular" puts an unfair spin on it. There is overwhelming consensus (like 99%) among working biologists (who are in the best position to evaluate the evidence) that evolution is true. Yes, there can be complexity and nuance. But evolution is quite literally one of the least controversial issues in all of science.
  - gjsman-1000 4y ago
    There is one issue though - how many biologists are religious in any way? According to BioMed Central, biology has more atheists than any other field. So, either they are all convinced that religions are false - or they are hardly the most impartial deciders, and are great at making sure any newcomers don’t get different ideas. Just that fact would make a religious person laugh their head off at taking their perspective. Even from an atheistic perspective, can we rule out the possibility of an echo chamber?
    - lisper 4y ago
      > According to BioMed Central, biology has more atheists than any other field. According to Pew, the percentage of scientists in biology and medicine who profess no religious belief (41%) is lower than geology (47%) or physics (46%). So your claim is questionable at best. But for the sake of argument let's suppose it's true. So what? If you took a survey of astronomers I'm pretty sure you'd find that the vast majority of them are convinced that flat-eartherism is false. But that's not because they are prejudiced, it's because the astronomical evidence is overwhelmingly against the flat-earth hypothesis, and so it's hardly surprising that there aren't very many flat-earthers among people who study astronomy. Likewise, the biological evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution. That is why virtually all biologists, including the religious ones, believe it. BTW, notice that religious belief also declines with age. This supports the hypothesis that the more you learn the less likely you are to be religious. And that is evidence against your (implied) hypothesis that belief in evolution is the result of atheistic prejudice. --- [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-a...

mfer 4y ago

> violently at odds with reality Most of the views people have that they call reality are conclusions drawn from interpreting observations based on assumptions. They aren't repeatedly observable or a case where the observation is shows "reality" without interpretation based on assumptions. This is how people come to different conclusions. Learning to understand the different assumptions people make for all views was enlightening for me, personally.

aidenn0 4y ago

> How can something be both logically sound and violently at odds with reality? Firstly, logical soundness has little to do with reality; here's a logically sound argument: All mammals nurse their Young Ducks are mammals Therefore ducks nurse their young Obviously the statement "Ducks are mammals" is false, garbage-in, garbage-out, but the logic itself is sound. Now there was an entire field of philosophy called "Rationalism" that had a chief tenet that innate ideas and deductive reasoning was superior to sensory information. Rene Descartes formulated "I think therefore I am" because any empirical evidence of the existence of an item is suspect, but the logical statement that "if a thought occurs, then some being must be doing the thinking" is irrefutable. Be aware that there are many epistemologies besides empiricism.

mbg721 4y ago
A way this is pointed out in college logic courses is that in a truth-table, if your "if" statement is false, then all "thens" are true.
maria2 4y ago
“Ducks are mammals” contradicts “mammals have mammary glands”. When this type of contradiction happens, we call the logical system inconsistent.
- aidenn0 4y ago
  It's still logically consistent if I claim that ducks have mammary glands, and any duck to the contrary has had them surgically removed by the government. You hand me an egg to put in my own incubator and raise myself? Well someone swapped the duck while I wasn't looking before the mammary glands developed.
- SAI_Peregrinus 4y ago
  "mammals have mammary glands" was not a listed axiom. There are two axioms, of the forms: "all X perform action Y", and "All D are members of X". There conclusion of the form "All D perform action Y" is sound. The second axiom contradicts observation, but axioms don't have to correspond to reality for the logic to be sound.

SAI_Peregrinus 4y ago

The axioms can contradict a particular view of reality. The "scientific" axioms assume that objective reality can be observed (they reject solipsism). Solipsistic axioms don't accept this, only the state of one's own mind can be directly observed so it's the only objective reality under these axioms. Religions accept the existence of one or more gods as axioms, usually with some extra axioms declaring the properties of such god(s).

afiori 4y ago

A reasoning is logically sound if it applies valid reasoning rules on well formed propositions. Young earth can be both false and logically sound, in that case it would also be the case that some of its assumptions or models need to be wrong. Another example of a logically sound yet wrong theory is the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, if nothing else because by Fourier analysis it follows that you can approximate well any periodic orbit using enough epicycles.