Good post. The “something may be intervening” concept is simply the creationism rationale in New Age garb. “We can’t explain something scientifically, so there MUST be something transcendental or supernatural involved.”
The argument from incredulity and the argument from ignorance are basically the same thing.
Because we do not now know, does not mean it is otherwordly or divine in source.
And basically nothing can ever be completely and absolutetly ruled out. No mainstream scientist will ever say he is 100% sure of anything.
IS does not want to understand this, he just wants to prove that he thinks he has a point.
I think he is also excercising confirmation bias. That is, that he has staked out a position that there could be something intervening, and now he is grasping for ways to justify his pre-conceived notion.
The scientific method was devised to prevent this exact thing from happening.
MifM:No no no. Sometimes my sense of well-being (which I localize in my viscera rather than my spine) has no outside stimuli at all, just like Immediate’s!!!
It’s just my deep sense of scientific responsibility to investigate completely (e.g. answering Immediate’s thoughtful questions) which forced me to disclose, to this cruel cruel forum, that sometimes the feeling of well-being is associated with a BM.
I s[h]it corrected. My cliff’s notes version of your post was far too vague… Too much yeast piss that night. ?
Immed.S.:Thank you for confirming that we cannot rule out that there just MIGHT be something may be intervening. I look forward to the type of analysis you mentioned above. Then, and only then, can we rule out that something is intervening when I get the chill up my spine from no apparent outside stimulus.
Probably shouldn’t be thanking me. You might have made much too much of my use of the word might. If this experiment revealed no electo-chemical tracers moving from the spine to the brain or vice versa, here’s what this evidence might suggest is intervening: your imagination.
IOW, what’s more likely ImmediateS, that the ghost of your dead grandmother is causing this “electro-spiritual pulse” (fuckin’ ‘a’ I.S. you’re getting more wooish with each post) OR that a subconscious or an internal emotion-based trigger (an internal stimuli) caused this sensation?
Yo McCrea, it’s credulity (a willingness/readiness to believe with little to no proof) not incredulity. (There, I added a smiley so you won’t think I’m being pissy or in need of settling down.)
It’s the argument from ‘incredulity’, as in too incredible to be explained, so it must be divine.
Yes, it would be more credible to argue that the universe was created by John Davidson from “That’s Incredible”...what? You weren’t even born when that awful show was on the air? Sorry, I forgot that 40 is the new 80.
With all due respect McCrea, the creator (pardon the shameless pun) of this site doesn’t appear to know that incredulity means to come from a position of doubt, or unwillingness to believe; to be skeptical, especially in regard to mystical claims.
The talkorigins doofus writes:
The argument from incredulity creates a god of the gaps. Gods were responsible for lightning until we determined natural causes for lightning, for infectious diseases until we found bacteria and viruses, for mental illness until we found biochemical causes for them. God is confined only to those parts of the universe we do not know about, and that keeps shrinking.
How does a skeptical position on the existence or non-existence of god create a god of the gaps?
I smell an apologist and it smells like bullshit to me.
No, No Iso, you are confused. If something cannot be explained today, people of faith apply God to that explanation. God fills the gaps of the unexplained, by religious people, not by scientists or reasonists.
Haven’t you spent any time on Talk Origins?? I have talked to Mark Issak personally and he is in charge of the ‘Creationist Claims’ section of the website. He is a biologist and no apologist to religion. Of course the website deals mainly with evolutionary theory vs creationism, but the same arguments apply to other things.
If something is not known today, scientists say we are working on it, and we think there is quite probably a natural explanation.
People of faith attribute it to a supernatural God, because science has not yet figured it out.
This is the entire premise for the Intelligent Design movement. ‘Teach the Controversy’ and promote the ‘God of the Gaps’ theory, which is really not a theory but a propaganda tool.
Yes, yes McC, I am confused. Please de-confuse me if you can. (I can also try having me hubby fuck some sense into me as a last resort. )
the argument from ‘incredulity’, as in too incredible to be explained, so it must be divine.
Incredulity doesn’t mean “too incredible to be explained.” It means “to come from a position of doubt, or unwillingness to believe; to be skeptical, especially in regard to mystical claims.”
I do not see how skepticism of mystical explanations concerning evolution leads to a “god of the gaps” theory (how is this even considered a theory anyway… it’s not… it’s speculation coming more from credulity, or a position of believing something without need of proof) even if it is, as Issak says, “shrinking.” Is he saying that this is what the creationist’s are saying?
Credibility and incredibility are not synonymous with credulity and incredulity McC.
Issak may be a brilliant biologist, but he can’t just make up new definitions for words. Are the creationist’s redefining the word incredulity to mean “too incredible to be explained?” If so, this is an incorrect definition.
Creationists do not ‘believe’ generally in scientific explanations and in a case where there is no scientic explanation today, they do not ‘believe’ one will be found. Thus they plug in their ‘God’ for the answer. Thus their argument is from ‘disbelief’ or ‘incredulity’.
Here is another claim by ID scientist/propagandist William Dembski and Issak explains why it is an argument from incredulity. All ID arguments are of this nature. I am sorta having a hard time understanding what you are arguing here and why you are not getting this, as you are way brighter than I am.
Are you saying that the incredulity is toward science then?
If so, then consider the lightbulb moment to have occurred.
My confusion stems from the fact that incredulity, traditionally, has long been a scientific position, not a religious or stuporstitious one.
*see ImmediateS. dialogue can occur, disagreements and confusion, complete with pokes and jabs with successful conclusions and it’s safe to say that neither McCrea nor I feel angry, insulted nor offended in any way.