Evolution Confusion

[Immoren]

I think its about time we started a new thread called Philosophical Confusion...

*sound of drumset being pushed off from the cliff at the distance*

[Mavorpen]

Are you saying that it's possible to not be correlational and also not causal?

I'm not saying anything. I'm asking a very simple question.

How have the experiments proven causality?

They haven't proven anything. You don't prove anything in science.

In any case, I already answered this. Experimental studies don't use methodologies that study correlation. They study causation by their design. Asking me how they prove causality is gibberish unless you're asking me for the specific methodology behind a specific study.

[Mega City 5]

They haven't proven anything. You don't prove anything in science.

In any case, I already answered this. Experimental studies don't use methodologies that study correlation. They study causation by their design. Asking me how they prove causality is gibberish unless you're asking me for the specific methodology behind a specific study.

Ok. Then explain to me how they established or supported causality.

[Mavorpen]

I think its about time we started a new thread called Philosophical Confusion...

Refusal to Learn is more appropriate IMO.

[Mavorpen]

They haven't proven anything. You don't prove anything in science.

In any case, I already answered this. Experimental studies don't use methodologies that study correlation. They study causation by their design. Asking me how they prove causality is gibberish unless you're asking me for the specific methodology behind a specific study.

Ok. Then explain to me how they established or supported causality.

Who is "they"? Identify a specific study. They use different methodologies for a reason.

[Poor Fellow Soldiers of Christ]

The place in the Summa is the Prima Pars, Article 73, Question 1, Reply 3. He does in the first case refer to the example of the mule, but he also makes specific mention in that quote 'perhaps even new species of animals'. Being without any physical evidence of pre-existing creatures, he does not say definitively that there is evolution. He does, however, say that it should occur.

Oh. He likely has in mind the "seminal reasons" doctrine of St. Augustine.

As far as I'm aware, St. Thomas doesn't entertain the idea that man evolved from some pre-existing species. He seems to say the exact opposite.

http://newadvent.org/summa/1091.htm

ST I, q. 91. Article 2 seems pretty clear. His question is whether God produced man's body through the instrumentality of secondary causes. He answers in the negative, saying that God created it directly. He has in mind the instrumental causality of the angels, but I think that the general thrust of his claim is that God directly fashioned man from the slime of the earth.

He does not actually say that, and you are putting into the Angelic Doctor's mouth your own words. He very clearly says that God made man directly rather than through 'Hey angels, come make humanity for me, kkthxbai'. Even in what he says with regard to that he is clear: "Nevertheless the angels could act as ministers in the formation of the body of the first man, in the same way as they will do at the last resurrection by collecting the dust." He fashions something new out of what he has already made, as well as making something entirely different - the soul.

[Mega City 5]

Who is "they"? Identify a specific study. They use different methodologies for a reason.

Pick any one that you want.

What is it that the scientists, any scientists, in any study, have found which would lead you to believe that all forms of thought are caused by brain states?

[Mavorpen]

Who is "they"? Identify a specific study. They use different methodologies for a reason.

Pick any one that you want.

What is it that the scientists, any scientists, in any study, have found which would lead you to believe that all forms of thought are caused by brain states?

...I ALREADY answered this.

In brief, what is your evidence for the claim that all forms of thought are reducible to physical states?

That we've established the dependence of thought upon the physical state of the brain using experimental research that, by their structure that is fundamentally different from correlational research, establishes causality.

YOU'RE the one going around in circles. I give you a piece of evidence and state that it established causality and then you ask me what evidence the research shows that establishes causality.

[Mega City 5]

He does not actually say that, and you are putting into the Angelic Doctor's mouth your own words. He very clearly says that God made man directly rather than through 'Hey angels, come make humanity for me, kkthxbai'. Even in what he says with regard to that he is clear: "Nevertheless the angels could act as ministers in the formation of the body of the first man, in the same way as they will do at the last resurrection by collecting the dust." He fashions something new out of what he has already made, as well as making something entirely different - the soul.

The article isn't about whether or not God directly created the human soul. The question is whether or not God directly created the body of the first man. St. Thomas answers in the affirmative.

Not angels.
Not the heavenly bodies.
And presumably not some previously existing animal species.

God directly and immediately.

This seems pretty straightforward, no?

[Mega City 5]

YOU'RE the one going around in circles. I give you a piece of evidence and state that it established causality and then you ask me what evidence the research shows that establishes causality.

I am asking you to indicate a proposition which lends support to the conclusion: "And therefore thinking is wholly reducible to physical states."

Because hindrance of the physical state hinders thought?

Because every act of thought is apparently accompanied by a physical state?

What particular reason do you have in mind?

[Poor Fellow Soldiers of Christ]

He does not actually say that, and you are putting into the Angelic Doctor's mouth your own words. He very clearly says that God made man directly rather than through 'Hey angels, come make humanity for me, kkthxbai'. Even in what he says with regard to that he is clear: "Nevertheless the angels could act as ministers in the formation of the body of the first man, in the same way as they will do at the last resurrection by collecting the dust." He fashions something new out of what he has already made, as well as making something entirely different - the soul.

The article isn't about whether or not God directly created the human soul. The question is whether or not God directly created the body of the first man. St. Thomas answers in the affirmative.

This seems pretty straightforward, no?

He also answers that the angels may have assisted, and that nature can change. You might as well say, "Oh, the surgeon did not really do the operation. Really, it was the nurse, who handed him the instruments he used, as well as the instruments themselves."

[Mavorpen]

YOU'RE the one going around in circles. I give you a piece of evidence and state that it established causality and then you ask me what evidence the research shows that establishes causality.

I am asking you to indicate a proposition which lends support to the conclusion: "And therefore thinking is wholly reducible to physical states."

Because hindrance of the physical state hinders thought?

Because every act of thought is apparently accompanied by a physical state?

What particular reason do you have in mind?

Yes.

[Mega City 5]

Yes.

Ok, cool. Well I'll remind you, as earlier, that A is evidence for B and against C if and only if A's being true is consistent with B, but not C.

These propositions are not inconsistent with my hypothesis. Therefore, they are not evidence for yours.

What piece of evidence that you have which could only be true if your hypothesis were correct and mine were incorrect?

[Morr]

In brief, what is your evidence for the claim that all forms of thought are reducible to physical states?

That we've established the dependence of thought upon the physical state of the brain using experimental research that, by their structure that is fundamentally different from correlational research, establishes causality.

Could you explain how that establishes causality? Certainly we have to accept causality, but in light of Hume's arguments, that's just because we're instinctual wired to perceive things as causality-based, rather than because causality is any inherent law of reality (and note that Hume's major application of this was to attack the arguments that a cause is logically necessary for existence of reality).

[Mavorpen]

Yes.

Ok, cool. Well I'll remind you, as earlier, that A is evidence for B and against C if and only if A's being true is consistent with B, but not C.

These propositions are not inconsistent with my hypothesis. Therefore, they are not evidence for yours.

What piece of evidence that you have which could only be true if your hypothesis were correct and mine were incorrect?

You have published and/or found peer reviewed research establishing that they are consistent?

Care to post it?

[Mavorpen]

That we've established the dependence of thought upon the physical state of the brain using experimental research that, by their structure that is fundamentally different from correlational research, establishes causality.

Could you explain how that establishes causality? Certainly we have to accept causality, but in light of Hume's arguments, that's just because we're instinctual wired to perceive things as causality-based, rather than because causality is any inherent law of reality (and note that Hume's major application of this was to attack the arguments that a cause is logically necessary for existence of reality).

I already explained twice now. I'm not doing so a third time. Go back and read.

[Mega City 5]

You have published and/or found peer reviewed research establishing that they are consistent?

Care to post it?

I don't have to do research proving that they're consistent. You have to prove that they are inconsistent. Thus the point about the null hypothesis. If you assert that an elephant passed through the forest and I don't believe you, it's not sufficient for you to show me a gigantic piece of feces. Another large animal might have left that gigantic piece of feces.

[Mavorpen]

You have published and/or found peer reviewed research establishing that they are consistent?

Care to post it?

I don't have to do research proving that they're consistent. You have to prove that they are inconsistent. Thus the point about the null hypothesis. If you assert that an elephant passed through the forest and I don't believe you, it's not sufficient for you to show me a gigantic piece of feces. Another large animal might have left that gigantic piece of feces.

Or course you do. Otherwise you're acting upon faith.

So again, you have the researrh or no?

[Mega City 5]

Or course you do. Otherwise you're acting upon faith.

So again, you have the researrh or no?

Again, false. Think about what you are doing when you are ruling out the null hypothesis. You are giving evidence that would be true if your hypothesis is true and the null hypothesis is false.

Again, consider the elephant example.

The presumption is that possibly A (this is a null hypothesis). The burden of proof is for you to show either that A is anything more than possible, or else, that A is impossible.

If you give evidence that doesn't rule out the null hypothesis, then you haven't supported your claim.

[Mega City 5]

He also answers that the angels may have assisted, and that nature can change. You might as well say, "Oh, the surgeon did not really do the operation. Really, it was the nurse, who handed him the instruments he used, as well as the instruments themselves."

If that's all that he were saying, then he would be making a trivial point. This is true in the case of every exercise of secondary efficient causes. The First Cause acts whenever secondary causes act. It enables them to perform their own acts and it gives something in addition which they can't.

Thus, God's causality enables, e.g., [even] a [brute animal] mother to beget her child, and He gives the child something in addition which the mother cannot give: esse (being).

If the first man was conceived in the womb of a brute animal, then the brute animal parents acted as secondary causes in the production of the first man's body.

St. Thomas says that God immediately created, i.e., without the exercise of instrumental or secondary causes, the first man's body.

[Mavorpen]

Or course you do. Otherwise you're acting upon faith.

So again, you have the researrh or no?

Again, false. Think about what you are doing when you are ruling out the null hypothesis. You are giving evidence that would be true if your hypothesis is true and the null hypothesis is false.

Again, consider the elephant example.

The presumption is that possibly A (this is a null hypothesis). The burden of proof is for you to show either that A is anything more than possible, or else, that A is impossible.

If you give evidence that doesn't rule out the null hypothesis, then you haven't supported your claim.

That we've established the dependence of thought upon the physical state of the brain using experimental research that, by their structure that is fundamentally different from correlational research, establishes causality.

Do you have a paper establishing that a hypothesis other than the one supported by the above evidence is consistent with said evidence or not?

[Morr]

Could you explain how that establishes causality? Certainly we have to accept causality, but in light of Hume's arguments, that's just because we're instinctual wired to perceive things as causality-based, rather than because causality is any inherent law of reality (and note that Hume's major application of this was to attack the arguments that a cause is logically necessary for existence of reality).

I already explained twice now. I'm not doing so a third time. Go back and read.

If it please you, quote the relevant paragraphs of the articles.

[Mega City 5]

Do you have a paper establishing that a hypothesis other than the one supported by the above evidence is consistent with said evidence or not?

I don't have to.

Unless you can tell me a piece of evidence which would be true if your hypothesis is correct and false if the null hypothesis is incorrect, you haven't given enough evidence to merit my giving evidence against your hypothesis. It's failed to be supported.

[Mega City 5]

If it please you, quote the relevant paragraphs of the articles.

He's taking it on atheist faith. Because science.

[Mavorpen]

Do you have a paper establishing that a hypothesis other than the one supported by the above evidence is consistent with said evidence or not?

I don't have to.

So you don't have one. Got it

[
Unless you can tell me a piece of evidence which would be true if your hypothesis is correct and false if the null hypothesis is incorrect, you haven't given enough evidence to merit my giving evidence against your hypothesis. It's failed to be supported.

You haven't given al any evidence against my hypothesis.