On Double Standards

_{Barry Arrington

June 23, 2016

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In the We Won thread someone who calls themselves rvb8 wrote: “We do not accept the supernatural because we can’t test for that.”

Well. Consider the following two statements:

Supernatural phenomena exist.

Natural phenomena are all that exist.

The two statements are mirror images are of one another. If one is true the other is necessarily false. They are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive.

And neither can be confirmed by test.

Notice the double standard here. rvb8 rejects statement 1 on the sole ground that it cannot be tested. But he affirms statement 2 (it is necessarily entailed by his statement) even though it cannot be tested either. The incoherence of scientism is obvious. Yet many cling to it in the teeth of its incoherence. Look, I am not even trying to prove the existence of God or the supernatural. That is a discussion for another day. My purpose is modest: Stop with the double standard already.

UPDATE: rvb8 doubles down

In comment 7 to the thread below this post, rvb8 responds with some doozies:

“And neither can be confirmed by test.” No Barry! One of these can be confirmed by testing, I’ll leave you and BA to figure out which.

Do tell. OK rvb8, I’ll bite. Please describe the test in which one would investigate every single phenomenon from the Big Bang to the heat death of the universe to confirm that every one of those phenomena was natural.

“The two statements are miror images of one another.” No Barry! Something that does not exist cannot reflect an image because photons will not bounce off something that is not there.

Umm, the “mirror” was not an actual mirror. Go to your dictionary and look up the word “metaphor.”

Comments

WJM, "The certainty that all humanity are created equal and have inherent value." Perhaps in your Disney imagination. Your accusations against me are ludicrous. I have three older brothers in happy marriages, a younger sister likewise, several nieces and nephewa I dote upon, and a partner whom I think, loves me. All, apparently human emotions, and all without the obnoxious God you seem so hell bent on venerating: No thank you! WJM, "It seems rvb8 has traded one class of robed priesthood for another." Is this mockery of Catholacism? If it is, be aware I was indeed Catholic up until the age of 'childhood', then I grew up. Your metaphor again, is telling. That you immediately look for a religious association in a scientific discussion tells me that the supernatural is never far from your thoughts. When I see a beautiful sunset it makes me glow and appreciate my fragile existance, to treasure it, when you see the same sunset you have a desire to prostrate yourself. I prefer the knowable.rvb8_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

Seversky @72
We don’t know that [How life originated]. We don’t have an explanation yet but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one and that we can’t find it. ... it makes sense to keep on looking.
We don't yet know that one can't drop tons of Scrabble pieces out of jumbo jet as it flies over an empty parking lot and have them accidentally land such that they neatly spell out Gone With the Wind. Life is Gone With the Wind neatly spelled out on the parking lot. One could be rational and just admit that it is most likely the case that an intelligent agent arranged the Scrabble pieces. Or one could insist that eventually the Scrabble pieces/jumbo jet method (or any mindless and accidental method) will be proven to be how that happened. Does that really make sense?harry_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

magna charta @ 48
1. What can’t Science do?
It can’t disprove the existance of God.
It doesn't have to. Burden of proof is borne by those who claim God exists.
it can’t determine how life originated.
We don't know that. We don't have an explanation yet but that doesn't mean there isn't one and that we can't find it.
It can’t determine how one species evolved into another.
There is evidence of speciation. How much detail do you want in your explanation of how?
It can’t disprove life after death.
Burden of proof again. If you want to persuade me that life in some form continues after death, show me your evidence.
It can’t disprove ID.
See above.
Science, in spite of its power, is very limited in what it can do, regardless of the money and resources thrown at it.
It might well be but we don't know where those limits are until we find them. Until then, it makes sense to keep on looking.Seversky_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

WJM, An invisibility cloak would render a pink unicorn, a white person, a green tank, etc. invisible despite those objects retaining their 'color' within the cloak. So technically speaking, it is possible for something to be both pink and invisible.rhampton7_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

Dean_from_Ohio @ 43
Seversky @ 36, Two questions: 1. What can’t Science do? 2. How many of the things identified in question #1, if any, would be resolved by adding additional resources, even infinite resources?
It is impossible for us to know what science can or cannot do in advance - apart from not being able to achieve the impossible, of course. All we can do is try and see how far we can get.Seversky_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

Do you notice anything missing? There is no reference to humans.
MC, there is absolutely nothing in any of my posts that implies that animals cannot see color. It makes no difference if animals can see color, or can see colors humans cannot. Why go to the animal kingdom? Some humans are color blind - in your world, most colors are "invisible" to them. Except that's not what it means. Electromagnetic waves do not possess "color". Objects do not possess "color". Color is an interpretation of stimuli - it is not a property of the stimuli itself, but rather in how the stimuli is interpreted, which is why some people smell or hear colors (synesthesia). To say that some colors are invisible to humans is, as they say, "not even wrong". Perhaps what you mean to say is: "there are some wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation which most humans do not translate into color, and which insects apparently do. Regardless, "invisible color" is an oxymoron. Would you like to buy a bottle of Dasani "invisible green" paint?William J Murray_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

FYI The incredible – and bizarre – spectrum of animal colour visionrhampton7_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

William:
Yeah, because that’s what I said. ROFL
If that is not what you said then you should be more clear in what you write. We perceive differences in wavelength over a limit range and label them as variations in colour. Different animals perceive differences in wavelength as well. Other than using labels to describe the perceived differences, are you suggesting that our perceptions are fundamentally different than those of other animals? If not, then why would we think that the colours/hues that are invisible to us do not exist? I looked up several definitions for colour and the all say roughly the same thing.
the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way the object reflects or emits light.
Do you notice anything missing? There is no reference to humans. If I shine two lights into your eyes at different times, one emitting infra-red and one emitting ultra-violet, could you distinguish the difference? Because a snake and an insect can. They do this because of the property possessed by the two lights producing different sensations on the eye of the snake and insect as a result of the way they emit light. Hmmm, sounds remarkably like the definition of colour.magna charta_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

Supposing a mantis shrimp is not an automaton and is actually having a subjective conscious experience, I hold that we have no clue what colors the mantis shrimp may actually be consciously experiencing
With 'biological sunscreen,' mantis shrimp see the reef in a whole different light - July 3, 2014 Excerpt: In an unexpected discovery, researchers have found that the complex eyes of mantis shrimp are equipped with optics that generate ultraviolet (UV) color vision. Mantis shrimp's six UV photoreceptors pick up on different colors within the UV spectrum based on filters made from an ingredient other animals depend on as built-in biological sunscreen, according to research reported in the Cell Press journal Current Biology on July 3. "The mantis shrimp visual system contains six types of photoreceptors functioning completely outside the visual range of humans," says Michael Bok of the University of Maryland Baltimore County. "Surprisingly, they produce their six UV photoreceptors using only two types of visual pigments by pairing one visual pigment with one of four UV filters. The UV filters block certain wavelengths of light from reaching the photoreceptors, chromatically shifting their sensitivity." The filters are composed of so-called mycosporine-like amino acids (or MAAs), which are commonly found in the skin or exoskeleton of marine organisms, where they absorb damaging UV rays. They do the same thing in mantis shrimp eyes, but for an entirely novel purpose. ,,, Despite the new discovery, the researchers say, it's still tough to imagine the reef as mantis shrimp see it. "The way their eyes are built and how visual information is processed in their brains is so fundamentally different [from] humans that is very difficult to conceptualize what the world actually looks like to them," Bok says. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-07/cp-ws062614.php Mantis Shrimp Eyes Could Show Way To Better DVD And CD players "Our work reveals for the first time the unique design and mechanism of the quarter-wave plate in the mantis shrimp's eye. It really is exceptional -- out-performing anything we humans have so far been able to create." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091025162459.htm
bornagain77_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

By studying electromagnetic waves you know for certain that some creature, say a mantis shrimp, experiences the color pink???
David Chalmers on Qualia - 5:35 minute mark - video https://youtu.be/NK1Yo6VbRoo?t=336 Consciousness: What are some concise ways to convince people that consciousness is not an emergent property? Excerpt: How do you explain the subjective experience of “redness”, let’s say. Saying simply that it’s the correlate of the neurophysiological response to certain rods and cones sensitive to certain light waves does not answer the question of why there is a gestalt qualitative experience of red. - Marc Ettlinger, Research Neuroscientist, Department of Veterans Affairs http://www.quora.com/Consciousness/What-are-some-concise-ways-to-convince-people-that-consciousness-is-not-an-emergent-property/answer/Marc-Ettlinger?srid=4tp&share=1 The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Michael Egnor - 2008 Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: - Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,, Qualia Qualia is subjective experience, which is first person ontology. You can describe pain, using science or literature or whatever. But the experience of pain is something qualitatively different. There is nothing in science which infers subjectivity -- no "Newton's Fourth Law" by which objective matter produces subjective experience. No material law or principle invokes subjectivity, yet subjectivity is the hallmark of the mind. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/the_mind_and_materialist_super013961.html
bornagain77_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

Mung
Sometimes I tire of saying it, but Barry is right again. I am still waiting for the scientific criteria for distinguishing the natural from the supernatural.
This is a very good point. We throw out the word supernatural without clear definition. Definition per Wiki:
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
I believe that life is not explained by the laws of nature. The behavior of the atom is also not well explained by the laws of nature. Are atoms and life supernatural? BTW I realize you have been trying to make this point:-)bill cole_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Magna Charta said:
Well, if you want to insist that other species are incapable of perceiving and distinguishing colours, you are welcome to your delusions. I prefer to accept the science.
Yeah, because that's what I said. ROFL.William J Murray_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

OK let's look at some probabilities here regarding my last post. I will ignore for the moment the dependencies between words in the English language whic will reduce the odds by a few orders of magnitude. There are 3x10^5 words in the language. Eight words were uttered. The odds against the selection of those 8 are 3^-8 x 10^-40 or . The permutations of eight words are 8! = 40320 so the previous is reduced by 1/8!, so far we have 3.78 x 10^-49 Now the event happening at that particular 5 second window would go like this. I am still studying the Course and have been since 1981. Five seconds divided by the number of seconds since 1981 is 5/(1.10376x10^9) = 4.53 x10^-9. With only 12 hours per day allowed for this kind of experience, will make that an even 10^-8 The product of the last numbers in the last two paragraphs is 3.78 x 10^-59. Now if you want to take out 3 powers of ten to allow for dependencies in the English language, we're still left with the odds of this experience happening is: 3.78 x 10^-56 There is no science anywhere, or no brain molecules that can account for this experience, except for possibly one theory by rbv8 brain molecules: that I am a liar.groovamos_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

William:
No, those are electromagnetic wavelengths that we do not translate into the experience of color. Unless, of course, you think the EM wavelengths themselves have inherent color?
Well, if you want to insist that other species are incapable of perceiving and distinguishing colours, you are welcome to your delusions. I prefer to accept the science.magna charta_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

Magna Charta @46 said:
Stick to phylosophy William, because you have a lot to learn about physics and biology. Insects see wavelengths that humans can’t see. Are these not colours that are invisible to humans?
No, those are electromagnetic wavelengths that we do not translate into the experience of color. Unless, of course, you think the EM wavelengths themselves have inherent color?William J Murray_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

Guys, you are focusing on irrelevant details. If it helps, replace invisible pink unicorn with flying spaghetti monster in my example. Try invisible particles. Or, when is the last time you saw an atom?Mung_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

http://twistedsifter.com/videos/magenta-doesnt-exist-heres-why/Mung_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

F/N: Pink is a colour-tint of red [c 650 nm light] and would be visible. Colour implies visibility. Just as it implies spatial extension and light by which it may be seen. Invisible and pink are contrary. KFkairosfocus_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

rvb8 Oh that’s right, we would be in a time approxiametly several centuries in the past when men exactly like WJM did control science. The supernatural has had a good run, give it a rest. boy there's a doozy for you. Someone at least admitting that philosophy is "too deep" thinks that science needs to be controlled. Guess that's why whole disciplines like the so-called "climate science", physics, and evolutionary biology are funded by the U.S. government and other Western governments. And referencing a time when science was relatively free from this control as being "controlled". Good one. Hey rvb8 I guess James Clerk Maxwell, quite a devout man, missed out on your "centuries ago" as did dozens of other religious men of science in the 19th century and I won't bother to name them here except for Max Planck. Oh and here is Werner Heisenberg, referring to that which cannot exist in a finite universe: The existing scientific concepts cover always only a very limited part of reality, and the other part that has not yet been understood is infinite. Whenever we proceed from the known into the unknown we may hope to understand, but we may have to learn at the same time a new meaning of the word `understanding'. In case you were wondering, Heisenberg was less than a century ago, and was certain that reality is infinite without any certainty of an infinite universe. But here is the real problem for rvb8. Hundreds of millions of living people have experienced inexplicable mind-boggling phenomena, experiences that inoculate them from the attempts at boggling and belittling by the arrogant scientism of rbv8 and his ilk. I will give one example that was experienced by yours truly: I was attending a wedding in Austin in the 1980's at which the couple had arranged a psychic to give a reading in a trance state during the ceremony. (note: as bizarre as this may seem, and as something that repulsed me at the outset, you could say Austin would be one of the few places where it might have seemed OK in that decade) I had been practicing the daily lessons from "A Course in Miracles" where the practitioner repeats mentally an affirmation, once per hour. I was on a review lesson where the last 6 lessons are alternated in order, one per hour. The challenge to myself was to remember each one verbatim without looking at the list. So it happened that the time for the mental exercise came in the middle of the psychic trance performance. After some tens of seconds not remembering which one to visualize, I reached into my pocket and pulled out the short list. Before I could look at the list the trance medium uttered the particular affirmation verbatim: To Give and Receive are one in Truth. Yours truly was quite blown away and with difficulty pondered the seeming miracle just experienced and the original harsh judgement I had nurtured at the beginning of the psychic reading. (continued)groovamos_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

Harry:
Such a replacement would change everything. Are you not aware of the profound difference between invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters? ;o
And, technically, he's more of a flying fettuccini monster. :)magna charta_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

skram @53 Such a replacement would change everything. Are you not aware of the profound difference between invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters? ;o)harry_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

Guys, you are focusing on irrelevant details. If it helps, replace invisible pink unicorn with flying spaghetti monster in my example.skram_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

john_a_designer @42 Excellent remarks.
Does this argument prove that God exists? No it doesn’t. However it does offer a viable, logical and rational alternative to naturalism and materialism, as well as other world views, like pantheism.
Although there is metaphysical proof for God's existence, and there is scientific evidence that renders disbelief irrational (see Robert Spitzer's New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy ) there is no strictly "scientific" proof of God's existence, like "if the litmus paper turns blue then ..." Those who demand such proof reveal their ignorance of the limitations of science. That God's existence can be proven metaphysically and that the discoveries of modern science have rendered contemporary atheism more irrational than atheism has ever been before is more than enough to justify theistic belief. It would be enough for atheists, too, if atheism weren't irrational. There can never be sufficient logical arguments and evidence for the irrational.harry_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

Barry, with respect, my original comment was in response to Lamont who said:
Skram, pink is a color and there is no such thing as an invisible color.
And I responded:
Technically, there are plenty of colours that are invisible to humans.
Do you see the phrase "invisible to humans that I bolded above? William responded to my statement that there are colours invisible to humans as follows:
There are no invisible colors, MC. Not “technically” or otherwise.
Since he was responding to my statement that there are plenty of colours invisible to humans, and since thousands of other species can see wavelengths (colours) that humans can't see, William is categorically and unequivocally wrong. But regardless, my original comment was intended as a small correction to a factual error and not intended to try to disprove any argument being made by any side. I really don't know how it got blown out of proportion.magna charta_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

WJM said:
One of the things I’ve noticed about many who come here to argue against the home team is that many appear to share the same inability to recognize and process certain kinds of abstract arguments. It really is as if they are biological automatons processing sequences of words and failing to comprehend the abstract concept those words are referring to.
I think the problem is that its very difficult to discuss complex topics like this with brief posts in a free-for-all discussion. There are skilled writers and academics who could do it because they've spend a lot more time considering these positions. Moat of the people here,it seems, are considering the topic on the fly. If we were sitting around a big table in a coffee shop there'd be more progress in getting to coherent positions because people could correct or adjust their claims quickly when an opponent made a pointREW_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

magna charta "Are these not colours that are invisible to humans?" The example that started this off said "invisible." It did not say "invisible to humans." Therefore, you are wrong and WJM is correct. There is, by definition, no such thing as an invisible color. In your responses you do not seem to be grasping the distinction between "invisible" and "invisible to humans." They are not the same thing, and you are treating them as if they were.Barry Arrington_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

1. What can’t Science do?
It can't disprove the existance of God. it can't determine how life originated. It can't determine how one species evolved into another. It can't disprove life after death. It can't disprove ID. Science, in spite of its power, is very limited in what it can do, regardless of the money and resources thrown at it.magna charta_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

William J Murray @44 I do not expect that the following will make any sense to the atheists who frequent this site. It seems to me that the Christian possesses, in addition to the certainties that you mentioned, the certain knowledge that comes from spiritual experience. It is received unfiltered by the senses and is received directly by one's soul. It makes a deeper impression upon us than does that which is received via our senses. This experience of God is very difficult, if not impossible, to convey to others in the same way the color blue could not really be explained to someone blind from birth. One has to experience it. Yet that the Christian has experiences like this should not surprise us:
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. -- John 14:21
Christ's manifestation of Himself to a believer creates a profound certainty of Him in them that surpasses all other forms of certainty. The reception of pure Logos makes a deeper impression upon a rational soul than does ordinary logic.harry_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

WIlliam:
It is at times like this that I think that some people will simply say anything and argue any point into absurdity just to disagree with theists,
Stick to phylosophy William, because you have a lot to learn about physics and biology. Insects see wavelengths that humans can't see. Are these not colours that are invisible to humans?magna charta_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

rvb8
this certainty of what is right, this rock solid assurance of what the other side, as it were, cannot grasp is the kind of assurity that is anathema to science.
My dictionary does not contain the word "assurity." I assume you mean "assuredness." And yet you assured us that the supernatural does not exist. So which is it rvb8? Is both your and WJM's assuredness wrong? Or is assuredness wrong only when it is expressed by your opponents?Barry Arrington_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply