tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post4746122759252109447..comments2024-03-28T02:54:46.537-04:00Comments on The TOF Spot: Climbing the Ladder of InferenceTheOFloinnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-43553788216608912542012-06-04T04:37:25.397-04:002012-06-04T04:37:25.397-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Gerrardzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17059284909954386936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-82669785338663812602011-10-05T22:52:59.121-04:002011-10-05T22:52:59.121-04:00I'm posting just to say that I had no idea tha...I'm posting just to say that I had no idea that TheOFloinn and Mike Flynn were the same .. person? Neat!<br /><br />And to second the comments on your bravery to deal so charitably with these folks; I tried following the discussion for awhile, but their mockery withered my resolve. I've felt clammy inside all afternoon, going about my chores, awed and ill by what they seem to be saying, and how they say it. You are an example I'll learn from.<br /><br />At all events, praying for you, Mike.lynch-patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10317527333150382940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-6817088811031342572011-09-30T13:47:45.078-04:002011-09-30T13:47:45.078-04:00I enjoyed reading your comments on Coyne's blo...I enjoyed reading your comments on Coyne's blog. On the other hand, I regret that I spent almost an hour of my morning wading through other people's comments for context.Janehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03893341464969743583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-64099508465841586372011-09-29T22:54:30.196-04:002011-09-29T22:54:30.196-04:00Mwahahah. But, no Klein bottle. Jameson's, i...Mwahahah. But, no Klein bottle. Jameson's, if you please.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-34247053948313348712011-09-29T22:51:02.628-04:002011-09-29T22:51:02.628-04:00I find you easy to read, Sense 1, yet difficult to...I find you easy to read, Sense 1, yet difficult to "read" Sense 2.<br /><br />You use language precisely and well; it's your **intent** which is as twisty as a Klein bottle.<br /><br />JJBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-90039331580294553682011-09-29T21:43:24.234-04:002011-09-29T21:43:24.234-04:00Well, he did announce a contest. I was actually r...Well, he did announce a contest. I was actually responding to John Farrell, a good friend. Then I learned that Coyne was cracking on in his spider hole about my comments, which apparently offended his sense of sola scriptura or something. So I thought I would clear up some misunderstandings revealed there. <br /><br />It's fun. Like shadow boxing. I get a chance to think out loud, see some objections -- some commentators really do have something useful to say; others may indicate where I was unclear. Most are sheer noise, but that's just the Internet for you. <br /><br />Thank you for your comment re easy to read. Go buy my books and see if you change your mind.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-16001079355950686162011-09-29T21:08:06.856-04:002011-09-29T21:08:06.856-04:00For the record, I've always enjoyed reading yo...For the record, I've always enjoyed reading your comments on these matters. But the fact that you waded into Coyne's backyard, calm and cool, is really something. "Surprised" is a mild way of putting what I'm sure the reaction was.<br /><br />And you've got a real easy to read manner, which strangely is lacking with a lot of writers.<br /><br />Regarding convincing the irrational, I agree. "Did it convince a cult of Gnu member?" isn't exactly the yardstick I'd use for a good argument.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-4508957668364105752011-09-29T13:18:44.381-04:002011-09-29T13:18:44.381-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-44811045552511754122011-09-29T12:43:34.229-04:002011-09-29T12:43:34.229-04:00One comment at a time, please. This post is about...One comment at a time, please. This post is about being to quick to climb the ladder of inference. Any problems with how it is possible for one metaphysical human among many biological humans to be our ancestor should be put on that post. Any problems with the law of gravity or the work of Canon Copernicus or Father Lemaitre should be placed in a post on geocentrism, if and when. <br /><br /><i>you have now had a chance to understand why your equivocations and novelties will certainly fail with atheists.</i> <br /><br />I never expect a rational argument to succeed with the irrational. <br /><br />Useful reading here:<br />Third catechesis by Christoph Cardinal Schönborn on December 4, 2005 in the cathedral of St. Stephan in Vienna. Translated by Prof. John F. Crosby. http://www.erzdioezese-wien.at/content/artikel/a10066<br />The others are also available on-line.<br />and here:<br />Kenneth W. Kemp, "Science, Theology, and Monogenesis," American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 85, No. 2 (2011)<br />http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/kemp-monogenism.pdf <br />the latter of which references:<br />Andrew Alexander, C.J., “Human Origins and Genetics,” Clergy Review 49 (1964): 344–53TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-39761668604417419222011-09-29T10:32:15.283-04:002011-09-29T10:32:15.283-04:00Sheesh, I went to the Coyne site, and all I can sa...Sheesh, I went to the Coyne site, and all I can say is, Mike and Mark, you have now had a chance to understand why your equivocations and novelties will certainly fail with atheists.<br /><br />The thread on NCR shows why they will fail with Catholics.<br /><br />At some point someone might consider challenging the unexamined assumptions built in to the atheist victory dance concerning population bottlenecks and junk DNA.Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-52443475886248296562011-09-29T10:08:33.067-04:002011-09-29T10:08:33.067-04:00PS: Geocentrism was not taught by the Church as a ...PS: Geocentrism was not taught by the Church as a scientific doctrine, nor did the Church's geocentrism involve crystalline spheres.<br /><br />Geocentrism was taught by the Church as a Revelation of God from Scripture.<br /><br />Unsurprisingly, four centuries later on, there exists no experimental (that is to say, *scientific*) demonstration of any motion of the Earth.<br /><br />In fact, the shoe is now on the other foot.<br /><br />It was Einstein's theory which provided an explanation for the failure of all terrestrial experiments to measure the (universally assumed) motion of Earth around Sun.<br /><br />OPERA, anyone?Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-9976996987841623762011-09-29T10:03:54.054-04:002011-09-29T10:03:54.054-04:00Science is not at all a pointless exercise, just s...Science is not at all a pointless exercise, just so long as it is always kept firmly in mind that the probability of any of its theories being correct is zero.<br /><br />In this way we can have cell phones without being hornswoggled into accepting multiverses and non-human humans as part of the "bargain".Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-68612561176457190992011-09-28T11:58:00.703-04:002011-09-28T11:58:00.703-04:00Yes, agreed, re: both cautiousness and the at-the-...Yes, agreed, re: both cautiousness and the at-the-time empirical basis of geocentrism. I'm just a bit sensitive on the issue because of the number of times I've heard it brought up to basically argue that science a pointless exercise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-69994464625730640882011-09-28T09:04:57.297-04:002011-09-28T09:04:57.297-04:00Don't worry about The Name of the Rose. It ha...Don't worry about The Name of the Rose. It hasn't been spoiled. Though I never though a book from that long ago needed protection. My apologies! <br /><br />But it isn't cautiousness per se. It is being aware of when you are adding your own preconceptions to the actual objective facts by cherry picking or construal. <br /><br />That the sun was embedded in a sphere that rotated around the earth was the settled science. It was not taken on faith, but on empirical evidence. See here for details: <br />http://thonyc.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/but-it-doesn%E2%80%99t-move/<br />+ + +<br />@rjohn<br />Yeah, they're cure, aren't they? They don't even seem to realize when they have contradicted one another.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-20177895686104874472011-09-28T04:46:56.879-04:002011-09-28T04:46:56.879-04:00Good Lord, I tried going through those comments yo...Good Lord, I tried going through those comments you linked to, but the sheer level of vitriol and small-mindedness astounded me. You're a stronger man to wade through that and reply to those objections, even keeping it light-hearted and humorous!rjohnlennonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07388273510498438009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-84519932749432353152011-09-28T00:59:05.523-04:002011-09-28T00:59:05.523-04:00"The Name of the Rose" is in my stack of..."The Name of the Rose" is in my stack of to-reads. Spoiler warnings, please!<br /><br />In all seriousness, though, while your post is good, I've become cautious lately about cautiousness. It's true that the easier error is unwarranted confidence, but the opposite error of unwarranted skepticism does exist too. The problem is if you take this cautiousness too far, you end up with extreme skepticism and end up doubting you should even climb the ladder in the first place. I've been hounded by too many of the fundamentalists you mention who claim this very tentativeness in science as a reason to reject science altogether and just "accept the Bible" as a science text instead. Everything we think we know today might just be turned on its head by evidence tomorrow, right?! So just take it all on faith -- the Earth is only 6,000 years old and is motionless while the Sun orbits it. Modern science is just a tentative guess anyway!<br /><br />In other words, I'm "cautious" to point out that good methods of gaining knowledge (like sound science) are worthwhile and lead to truth, however ultimately incomplete such knowledge might be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com