GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-20-2013, 17:16   #826
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,134


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
One requires the assumption that there is a natural process involved. Given the number of times we as humans have found natural causes and processes for unknown events, this is not an unreasonable assumption, despite there not being a proof for it in this specific situation.

The other requires the assumption of a deity, which is basically by definition not falsifiable.

I think we ought to look at the possibility that we'll yet again uncover a natural cause or process by looking for one, rather than sticking ourselves in an unproductive loop of 'don't know', don't you?
I think we should look for the truth.

Now you may actually see the difference. You are looking for affirmation of your own beliefs.

Or maybe not.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-20-2013, 17:26   #827
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Actually, I'm changing my mind right now. The statement "Either life on this planet was made or occurred without interference?" is not true, it's a false dichotomy. If a designer created the physics of the universe such that life occurring from natural processes were inevitable, life would have been both made and occurred by natural processes.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-20-2013 at 17:26..
void * is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 17:28   #828
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I think we should look for the truth.
Since one of those is falsifiable, and the other isn't, if you want to look for the truth, which one do you investigate?
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson
void * is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 17:38   #829
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
You are looking for affirmation of your own beliefs.

Or maybe not.
The answer is *not*. Consider everything that has been unknown where someone decided to assume it was a natural process and actually found sufficient evidence to say a natural process occurred. Now consider everything that has been unknown that has ever been attributed to a deity, where we discovered sufficient evidence it was actually a deity. Look at the one hand, look at the other, and ask yourself if you think they're both equally probable methods of determining truth.

It has nothing to do with affirmation, and everything to do with which method has a higher probability of determining truth.

If it turns out I'm wrong, no big whoop, I've been wrong before - and I'll be wrong again - but at least I've got a shot at figuring out I'm wrong.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-20-2013 at 17:39..
void * is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 17:38   #830
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,539
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Come on, ducks on your shoulder? I'm supposed to take that seriously? I thought you were being intentionally ridiculous.\
Woman made from the rib of a man? Virgin birth? Talking asses (no, not the GTRI variety, but a real talking donkey)? Marching around a walled city playing trumpets and the wall comes crumbling down? One (to seven) pair of each animal on earth and all the food, etc they need to live on a boat for a year? People living into their 900s? Ancient Jews sailed to the Americas in the 5th century CE. Black skin was a curse (until 1978 when God changed his mind)?

Ridiculous is largely a matter of indoctrination.

-ArtificialGrape
ArtificialGrape is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 18:00   #831
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,134


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Since one of those is falsifiable, and the other isn't, if you want to look for the truth, which one do you investigate?
I'm pretty busy with making a living and going about every day life helping others. I'm not all that interested one way or the other anyway, so I'll let others do the investigation for us.

How much real scientific investigation time do you spend "looking for the truth"?????

Link to all the studies you've had an active role in.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-20-2013, 18:06   #832
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,134


Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
Woman made from the rib of a man? Virgin birth? Talking asses (no, not the GTRI variety, but a real talking donkey)? Marching around a walled city playing trumpets and the wall comes crumbling down? One (to seven) pair of each animal on earth and all the food, etc they need to live on a boat for a year? People living into their 900s? Ancient Jews sailed to the Americas in the 5th century CE. Black skin was a curse (until 1978 when God changed his mind)?

Ridiculous is largely a matter of indoctrination.

-ArtificialGrape
Grape,

Try to understand that as an agnostic, I'm not invested in Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or Islamism.

All that being said, either life on this planet was designed, or happened without any intelligent interference.

Atheists believe one way because it fits with the rest of their chosen beliefs.

Theist believe one way because it fits with the rest of their chosen beliefs.

Two sides of the same faith coin...... No?

If not, how so?
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-20-2013, 18:36   #833
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I'm pretty busy with making a living and going about every day life helping others. I'm not all that interested one way or the other anyway, so I'll let others do the investigation for us.
Sure, but which way should you expect *them* to investigate?

Oh, wait - I get it. You don't want to find out the truth. You want them to look for the truth, so you can complain about scientists making 'guesses' and 'conjecture' and 'extrapolation' whenever it's convenient for you, right?

Quote:
How much real scientific investigation time do you spend "looking for the truth"?????
Depends on what I'm trying to figure out, and what you mean by 'real scientific investigation'. I've never claimed to be a scientist. Like I've said before, I will go and verify things for myself, that I'm actually able to verify, if I decide I'm interested enough to want to do that. I don't have time to go all-out 'I'm gonna become a scientist'. But I do have time to, say, check out whether or not Dawkin's weasel requires that letters be locked. Or write a genetic algorithm that starts with randomly generated bytecode to see if it ever eventually results in something that will run and play the Prisoner's dilemma (which, in fact, it does). Or set up basic physics experiments that I have the tools & gear to replicate. Or download the CRU data for myself, look at it myself, and make my own decision on what I think is going on. I don't verify everything, but I do in fact make an effort to verify what I have the ability to verify.

It's how I found out that whenever I've been able to investigate myself a falsifiable claim that intelligent design proponents have made, there's a claim that has turned out to be false. Really, actually falsified, not just 'well, it's not falsifiable'.

Dawkins weasel does *not* require that you lock a letter.
Genetic algorithms *do not* require a predefined target string.
Processes involving randomness *do not* always result in randomness.

That doesn't mean that *all* their claims are false, and it doesn't falsify the idea of a creator, but if you don't think that's a reasonable basis for not trusting the claims they make that I don't have a direct ability to investigate - in other words, if you don't think that's a reason to not trust them - then what is?

How often do *you* go check, rather than assume or just take someone's word on it? You never answered that. Oh, right, checking yourself only matters if you're a scientist, everybody is supposed to take everything on authority, so you can accuse them of having faith, and the scientists of just guessing, right?
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-20-2013 at 18:57..
void * is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 20:23   #834
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,134


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Sure, but which way should you expect *them* to investigate?

I'd expect them to investigate toward truth without bias, but I don't always get what I expect. It is what it is after all, regardless of what you wish it really were.

Quote:

Oh, wait - I get it. You don't want to find out the truth. You want them to look for the truth, so you can complain about scientists making 'guesses' and 'conjecture' and 'extrapolation' whenever it's convenient for you, right?
Just another lame straw man. Better men and higher thinkers with even a modest amount of integrity would have avoided such an impotent attempt. Try to stay more "coherent" in the evenings.

Quote:
Depends on what I'm trying to figure out, and what you mean by 'real scientific investigation'. I've never claimed to be a scientist. Like I've said before, I will go and verify things for myself, that I'm actually able to verify, if I decide I'm interested enough to want to do that. I don't have time to go all-out 'I'm gonna become a scientist'. But I do have time to, say, check out whether or not Dawkin's weasel requires that letters be locked. Or write a genetic algorithm that starts with randomly generated bytecode to see if it ever eventually results in something that will run and play the Prisoner's dilemma (which, in fact, it does). Or set up basic physics experiments that I have the tools & gear to replicate. Or download the CRU data for myself, look at it myself, and make my own decision on what I think is going on. I don't verify everything, but I do in fact make an effort to verify what I have the ability to verify.

It's how I found out that whenever I've been able to investigate myself a falsifiable claim that intelligent design proponents have made, there's a claim that has turned out to be false. Really, actually falsified, not just 'well, it's not falsifiable'.

Dawkins weasel does *not* require that you lock a letter.
Genetic algorithms *do not* require a predefined target string.
Processes involving randomness *do not* always result in randomness.

That doesn't mean that *all* their claims are false, and it doesn't falsify the idea of a creator, but if you don't think that's a reasonable basis for not trusting the claims they make that I don't have a direct ability to investigate - in other words, if you don't think that's a reason to not trust them - then what is?

How often do *you* go check, rather than assume or just take someone's word on it? You never answered that. Oh, right, checking yourself only matters if you're a scientist, everybody is supposed to take everything on authority, so you can accuse them of having faith, and the scientists of just guessing, right?
I work in the real world every day. I know that a 29 year old AM male that runs 6 days a week, 2 miles between 13 & 14 minutes, should not have a resting BP of 102/68 and a resting pulse of 94. Those values are in the normal ranges for an adult, however, they do not fit for this gentleman, and more investigation is warranted. Something is wrong, and whatever it is, it needs to be found quickly. Just one of my patients today...... That's not why he was sent to me, but it's something that needs attention. He complained that he has been asking about this issue for years, and no one has paid it any attention. Maybe because his other providers are digital thinkers that ignored what are considered "normal" results. Who knows? Who cares, he'll be worked up now.



I deal with analog science daily. Digital decisions made about events that happened hundreds of millions of years ago are far from certain. Atheists and Theists want to believe certain details, and that want is recognized. If they were wrong about just a couple little details, all they have based their belief system on would come crumbling down around their ears.

Do you know abiogenesis through a natural process is what led to life on earth, or are you really just hoping with all of your heart and being that it is?

If you know, prove it to me.


Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-20-2013 at 20:26..
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-20-2013, 21:54   #835
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,539
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Grape,

Try to understand that as an agnostic, I'm not invested in Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or Islamism.

All that being said, either life on this planet was designed, or happened without any intelligent interference.

Atheists believe one way because it fits with the rest of their chosen beliefs.

Theist believe one way because it fits with the rest of their chosen beliefs.

Two sides of the same faith coin...... No?

If not, how so?
As an agnostic, where do you draw the line at ridiculous?

What makes a Deity Duck more ridiculous than any other deity put forth? Is there some amount of evidence put forth by proponents of non-duck deities that make them less ridiculous?

Perhaps a religion is no longer ridiculous once you surpass a certain number of believers?

If life was designed/created, are you saying that it could not have been the Shoulder Duck Deity?

-ArtificialGrape
ArtificialGrape is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 23:18   #836
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Do you know abiogenesis through a natural process is what led to life on earth, or are you really just hoping with all of your heart and being that it is?
Well, there's a false dichotomy.

First - of course I don't know in the sense of having absolute certainty. Second - please provide a quote where I've ever stated that abiogenesis through natural processes is absolutely certain.

All I've been saying is, given the fact that historically people have made a lot of god claims for various processes that turned out to be natural, it's perfectly reasonable to *provisionally* hold that it's more probable a natural process occurred, especially when the alternative (Intelligent Design) is not falsifiable, and there are actually lab experiments, etc. that tend to indicate that chemical process *could* have done it. (Doesn't mean they did - but it's more than 'we can't prove a creator didn't exist').

We've seen natural causes win out over $deity. Electricity. Earthquakes. Solar Eclipses. *Many* things. When have we seen $deity win out over natural causes? The answer is, you can't, because even if $deity exists, without the assumption of methodological (and note that I said methodological, not philosophical) naturalism absolutely everything becomes unfalsifiable.

Second, given that you actually did in fact make an affirmative claim that it was 'ridiculously false', do you *know* there's no creator duck on my shoulder, or were you really just hoping with all of your heart that there isn't? (If that doesn't drive home why it's a false dichotomy, let me know and I'll explain it to you further. There's more options that "know" and "really hope it isn't". There's also 'Realizes some progress has been made in that area even though it's not to the point a particular model can be accepted' and 'Notes that made can't be falsified, while a scientist putting forth a model of abiogenesis better have made it falsifiable, or he's going to get shot down by *somebody*'").
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-20-2013 at 23:36..
void * is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 23:43   #837
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Here's a question for you, Doc. And I'm seriously curious. Have you ever examined a patient that had symptoms of two very similar but different diseases, and had to make a probability assessment of which the patient had, based on factors that tend to indicate one over the other, but don't actually differentiate the two with absolute certainty?

If you have, well - that's basically where I'm at with regards to a creator. Based on the data I have, I think it's more likely to be natural processes. But that doesn't preclude further information from changing how likely I think one or the other is later.

If you don't get that, well - I guess you don't get it.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-20-2013 at 23:55..
void * is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 04:41   #838
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,134


Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
As an agnostic, where do you draw the line at ridiculous?

What makes a Deity Duck more ridiculous than any other deity put forth? Is there some amount of evidence put forth by proponents of non-duck deities that make them less ridiculous?

Perhaps a religion is no longer ridiculous once you surpass a certain number of believers?

If life was designed/created, are you saying that it could not have been the Shoulder Duck Deity?

-ArtificialGrape
The duck on voids shoulder, the one that whispers to him, that he posited and yet also does not believe in himself? (See post 803).
It's a construct that he admits he made up, the duck, much in the way of the FSM is intentionally ridiculous on his part. I see the game and the goal of the point he is trying to score.

I have no problem if you and void would like to believe in and worship this duck, it's your first amendment right to do so. Now if the duck starts telling you to do bad things, report that to your nearest Emergency Room health care provider before doing anything harmful to another. Then we are cool on the whole duck thing. It's not my job to get in between you and your God.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-21-2013, 04:56   #839
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,134


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Here's a question for you, Doc. And I'm seriously curious. Have you ever examined a patient that had symptoms of two very similar but different diseases, and had to make a probability assessment of which the patient had, based on factors that tend to indicate one over the other, but don't actually differentiate the two with absolute certainty?

If you have, well - that's basically where I'm at with regards to a creator. Based on the data I have, I think it's more likely to be natural processes. But that doesn't preclude further information from changing how likely I think one or the other is later.

If you don't get that, well - I guess you don't get it.
These medical analogies from laymen rarely fit.
The old joke is that patients are allowed to have tics AND fleas. Patients can have two simultaneous conditions that may have same or opposite symptoms. ETOH detox usually has symptoms of rapid heart rate and excitability. So, a student might not pick up on a lady admitted for other reasons with disturbing hallucinations with a normal pulse and BP, and might conclude the hallucinations are psychiatric in origin. But, notice that she used to be on synthroid and hasn't refilled it in a couple months, and get a good history about how much ETOH she consumed prior to admittance, and the reason for her symptoms AND the lack of a particular red flag symptom becomes clear.

Medicine is not something that works well with black and white thinking. Vague analogies in medicine aren't very useful.

Are their probability assessments? Sure. They can often be a lot more complicated than this OR that. None that I can remember dealt with an event hundreds of millions of years ago.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-21-2013 at 05:32..
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-21-2013, 05:06   #840
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Grape,

Try to understand that as an agnostic, I'm not invested in Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or Islamism.

All that being said, either life on this planet was designed, or happened without any intelligent interference.

Atheists believe one way because it fits with the rest of their chosen beliefs.
No, atheists examine the evidence and reject the assertion which has none. There is no evidence indicating intelligent design.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Theist believe one way because it fits with the rest of their chosen beliefs.

Two sides of the same faith coin...... No?

If not, how so?
Faith isn't required to reject unsupported assertions.
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 05:30   #841
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,134


Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
No, atheists examine the evidence and reject the assertion which has none. There is no evidence indicating intelligent design.



Faith isn't required to reject unsupported assertions.
It's perfectly fine with me if you want to believe that. No problem at all.


So you are rejecting abiogenesis too? Or is that theory OK because it "fits".

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-21-2013 at 05:37..
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-21-2013, 05:51   #842
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It's perfectly fine with me if you want to believe that. No problem at all.

So you are rejecting abiogenesis too? Or is that theory OK because it "fits".
Is there any evidence for intelligent design?
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 05:56   #843
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,134


Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
Is there any evidence for intelligent design?
Must it be one OR the other?

Do you believe in abiogenesis? If so, why?
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-21-2013, 09:12   #844
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
These medical analogies from laymen rarely fit.
It's not an analogy, it's a question. I was reading about differential diagnosis on a whim, and decided to ask because it sounds a whole heck of a lot like my general approach to everything. Roughly, assign likelihoods to the different possibilities - do further analysis, sometimes picking what to do next based on what is currently thought to be most probable. Rinse, repeat.

I wasn't asking about students. I wasn't talking about 'black and white thinking'. Oh well, I guess you don't use it. I tried. *shrug*.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-21-2013 at 09:18..
void * is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 09:16   #845
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Must it be one OR the other?
Nope.
Is there any evidence for intelligent design?
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-21-2013 at 09:19..
void * is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 09:21   #846
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It's a construct that he admits he made up, the duck, much in the way of the FSM is intentionally ridiculous on his part.
Sure. And that may well *justifiably* increase someone's assessment of the probability that it is in actuality false. And, as Grape noted, how is it any more ridiculous than many of the claims made by various religions?

However, that is not proof that it does not exist. There is some small chance that, no matter that I made it up, no matter that I wasn't intending it to be a true statement, it is actually true.

If you disagree, please prove it is not true. That's the thing with unfalsifiable posits - you can't falsify them.

Yet, you do not have a problem saying it is 'ridiculously false', despite the fact that you have a problem when people look at other unfalsifiable posits, decide it's not likely, and decide to act as though it is not true. Your behavior contradicts your stated worldview. You'll never admit it, but it's plain to see, and I suspect that even you know it.

When people from a particular Christian rooted religious sect came to my door and wanted to talk to me, and I talked to them, and they claimed their last two religious leaders (one of whom was dead) were Jesus and the Holy Ghost (which I'm sure plenty of people think is ridiculous), I did not slam the door in their face after saying 'that's ridiculously false'. I asked them why they thought that, listened to them, considered it, told them it wasn't enough evidence for me to believe it (it amounted to 'it's true because our leader says it's true'), and politely told them to have a nice day. I can't prove what they say is false - but I don't believe it.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-21-2013 at 09:39..
void * is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 09:24   #847
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,134


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
It's not an analogy, it's a question. I was reading about differential diagnosis on a whim, and decided to ask because it sounds a whole heck of a lot like my general approach to everything.

I wasn't asking about students. I wasn't talking about 'black and white thinking'. Oh well, I guess you don't use it. I tried. *shrug*.
And I answered, yes, probabilities are used, but it's often more complex than an either this or that scenario. There are usually a lot of different factors that have to be considers.

Still, diagnosing and fixing problems with machines and/or people is a bit different than deciding what to believe happened a long time ago, when the first living cell capable of reproducing came into being.

How did you want to tie in working and differential diagnoses?
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-21-2013, 09:28   #848
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,134


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
It's not an analogy, it's a question. I was reading about differential diagnosis on a whim, and decided to ask because it sounds a whole heck of a lot like my general approach to everything.

I wasn't asking about students. I wasn't talking about 'black and white thinking'. Oh well, I guess you don't use it. I tried. *shrug*.
And I answered, yes, probabilities are used, but it's often more complex than an either this or that scenario. There are usually a lot of different factors that have to be considered. Ask just about anyone an they will tell you practicing medicine is almost as much an art as it is a science.

Still, diagnosing and fixing problems with machines and/or people is a bit different than deciding what to believe happened a long time ago, when the first living cell capable of reproducing came into being. Whether abiogenesis or intelligent design was responsible for life on the planet hasn't been a significant factor in most diagnostic challenges.

How did you want to tie in working and differential diagnoses?
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-21-2013, 09:54   #849
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
And I answered, yes, probabilities are used, but it's often more complex than an either this or that scenario. There are usually a lot of different factors that have to be considered. Ask just about anyone an they will tell you practicing medicine is almost as much an art as it is a science.
I'm not claiming it's *always* a this or that thing. I asked, is all.

Quote:
How did you want to tie in working and differential diagnoses?
So take the example on the wikipedia page. I suspect it's a bit simplified for illustrative purposes, but let's take it.

Basically, they're running through, gathering what data they can gather, making a probability assessment, and that probability assessment changes as they do more tests and gather more data. It appears that the probabilities are sometimes used to determine what other tests to do, or what data to gather.

The final assessment in the example ends up being something like a 97% probability of primary hyperthyroidism, a 0.7% chance it's cancer, a 0.6% chance it's any other condition, and a 1.6% chance there's no disease whatsoever.

Does the doctor say 'well, there's still some uncertainty, we don't know what it is', or does the doctor take some action based on what he currently assesses as the most probable cause?

Basically, are you ever in a situation where you're confident enough to take actions based on those probability assessments even though you are *fully* aware you do not conclusively know what condition the patient has with 100% certainty?

If you have, I suspect you don't see that as religious - and that's really all I'm doing. I am fully aware I can't prove creation didn't happen. It's not a falsifiable posit, nobody can prove it. However, my current probability assessment is that a natural process is more likely, there's some evidence showing that various things required for it can chemically happen, even though it can't be shown right now that they *did* happen, and there have historically been 'deity did it vs. natural process' situations that have turned out to be natural processes, whereas 'deity did it' hasn't reasonably been shown. So I go with that - if there's some evidence that materially changes those probabilities, I'll change them, and go with that instead.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-21-2013 at 10:05..
void * is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 10:15   #850
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,134


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Nope.
Is there any evidence for intelligent design?
There is only an argument for the possibility. Similarly, there is only an argument for the possibility of abiogenesis.

Both sides claim to have evidence. I haven't seen what I would call evidence from either side. I see a lot of extrapolated supposition from both sides. The creation of amino acids in the lab is neat, but that is far from close to life being created. Amino acids are a very small piece of a much larger and complex machine.

Odds are one of them is right, if so, odds are the other is wrong. Much hangs in the balance for believers both ways. They tend to dismiss each others arguments on sight. So far, it's just not a daily source of worry for me one way or the other which is right.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 18:21.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,322
429 Members
893 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42