tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post6383628332852968626..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Straw Men Burning: Tim McGrew on Misinterpretations of the McGrews' article on the ResurrectionVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65434893550077621322011-05-18T07:25:33.947-07:002011-05-18T07:25:33.947-07:00Saw this response the other day to the McGrews'...Saw this response the other day to the McGrews' resurrection argument, see what you guys think http://failingtheinsidertest.blogspot.com/2011/05/my-rebuttal-to-mcgrews-rewritten.htmlMichael Baldwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09496687749283004816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72450538087070677612011-05-17T07:41:08.830-07:002011-05-17T07:41:08.830-07:00BDK - I think we can generally assume that a reaso...BDK - I think we can generally assume that a reasonable level of competence in mathematics has been acquired along the way to Dembski's credentials. It is also pretty safe to assume, based on credentials and publication history, that he is more competent in mathematics than you are (even with your "mathematical agument against Creationism", being published in the school paper).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43225726546341238012011-05-16T06:07:01.863-07:002011-05-16T06:07:01.863-07:00Anon credentials and competence are correlated but...Anon credentials and competence are correlated but not the same, so your initial confusion is understandable. Glad to help.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30784196424241964382011-05-15T22:09:08.190-07:002011-05-15T22:09:08.190-07:00BDK: However, What that quote shows is that I feti...BDK: However, What that quote shows is that I fetishize competence, not credentials.<br /><br />Anon: The two usually go hand in hand, as one usually must gain and prove competence in acquiring credentials. This is why we generally respect credentials.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64693555897898227492011-05-15T07:43:01.902-07:002011-05-15T07:43:01.902-07:00LOL touché anon. Good one.
However, What that qu...LOL touché anon. Good one. <br /><br />However, What that quote shows is that I fetishize competence, not credentials. I wont' ask for your CV. The closest I've ever come to such silliness is in my parodies of Loftus who once dismissed Tim as an "uncredentialed hack" instead of addressing his arguments. <br /><br />My main point being missed is that <i>everyone</i> has a threshold (set by interest level, time commitments, initial plausibility, etc) below which they won't put the time in to study something. I was simply being up front that my threshold is extremely high for quantitative apologetics. I didn't say this means I should be trusted on Tim's argument specifically; quite the contrary. If you see my first post, I was explicit that I was only commenting on the blog post and links so might need to be set straight on some things. I don't know how I could have been more clear about that.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69628010426855633272011-05-14T20:31:11.734-07:002011-05-14T20:31:11.734-07:00BDK (old): When someone I respect shows some respe...BDK (old): When someone I respect shows some respect for the technical aspects of one of these arguments, then I take a look...So now my filter is much stronger: it has to be people with expertise in the mathematics, people that I have prior reason to trust... Since then I've wasted no time with this crap.<br /><br />BDK (new): credential fetishism is not something I play...I'm happy to engage with arguments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44488316257237265982011-05-14T16:35:37.472-07:002011-05-14T16:35:37.472-07:00Alan: credential fetishism is not something I play...Alan: credential fetishism is not something I play. Talk to John Loftus if that is your game. <br /><br />If you want to defend the explanatory filter as a rigorous principle of inference, be my guest. I'm happy to engage with arguments.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48702741702279219442011-05-14T07:52:38.287-07:002011-05-14T07:52:38.287-07:00Vic,
I believe Anon is talking about William Demb...Vic,<br /><br />I believe Anon is talking about William Dembski.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09752886510692318211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82547607664578115702011-05-13T21:58:33.255-07:002011-05-13T21:58:33.255-07:00Who is William? Tim McGrew?Who is William? Tim McGrew?Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29154290495647355312011-05-13T17:00:24.233-07:002011-05-13T17:00:24.233-07:00Dear blog readers,
For all this BDK's posturi...Dear blog readers,<br /><br />For all this BDK's posturing, I doubt he has better credentials in mathematics than William. It is great that he finally understood statistical thinking at an intuitive level, when he read an introductory level work, but I haven't seen mention of anything actually published in refutation of William, or anything published in mathematics at all. Cambridge University Press chose to publish William's work (aka "crap" according to this BDK) in their series, Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory. This BDK, OTOH, writes mostly on blogs? Has published what on mathematics? BDK's work has been reviewed by who? Where? When? I am amazed at the lack of charity I see sometimes within the blogging community, but even more so the distortion of reality. <br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br /> Alan BakerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75577732578893971072011-05-11T14:11:36.452-07:002011-05-11T14:11:36.452-07:00BDK: For instance, what of concerns about what ear...BDK: For instance, what of concerns about what early Christians actually thought about the resurrection (as discussed here and in the other posts)? It really isn't that clear at all. It seems there is no univocal answer.<br /><br />Anon: Yup, same with the Big Bang. There's just no univocal answer on that one. Hawking even makes the singularity disappear by invoking imaginary time. And we all know how smart he is. I mean, all we have to do is look at any field and find some dissenters. We don't need to evaluate these arguments on our own and attempt to defend our own stance. It is a waste of time. I've heard there are even neuroscientists who think materialism is false. So that one is in question too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9936783378286264922011-05-11T14:07:14.626-07:002011-05-11T14:07:14.626-07:00BDK writes: "No need to waste my time scourin...BDK writes: "No need to waste my time scouring the primary theological literature because one of them might end up being a good argument. If it is good, it will rise to the top of the pile."<br /><br />Anon: This is a very rational method. It is just obvious that the most technical/rigorous arguments made by those with true mathematical expertise, are the ones that really penetrate the broader popular culture - being both the most easily understood and employed by the masses. <br /><br />Rick Warren's next book is actually called _The Probability Driven Life_. <br /><br />The most dense "crap" usually sinks, folks. Only scoop it out and investigate if it floats to the top of the bowl.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88877195198935588992011-05-11T13:57:10.105-07:002011-05-11T13:57:10.105-07:00Hiero: Thanks, Anonymous. From your gentle parody ...Hiero: Thanks, Anonymous. From your gentle parody I now realize I was being a total racist to assign a low prior probability of this Nigerian banker email being fraudulent just because I've seen so many of them turn out that way in the past. Each argument should be evaluated in a historical vacuum.<br /><br />Anon: I'm with you, Hiero. John Loftus turned out to be a real dope. So I just can't take skeptics seriously, bro. We should not evaluate arguments based on their own merits, man. My good friend from Nigeria and is in the banking industry, and he *seems* like one of the most honest people I've ever met, but he needs to overcome my probabilistically justified bias towards Nigerians. I film him secretly whenever he comes over, in case I have to use the restroom or something.<br /><br />Anyway, I'm with BDK and Hiero. These arguments can all be lumped under the heading of "crap". If its got probability calculus, and Christians think it supports their faith, its probably just crap.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43859808510443980802011-05-11T08:04:35.137-07:002011-05-11T08:04:35.137-07:00Heiro: these probabilistic arguments are fun exerc...<b>Heiro:</b> these probabilistic arguments are fun exercises, if you have the time. As I said, I largely use people I respect as my personal filter at this point rather than take the 10 hours to go through them myself. Nothing interesting has squeaked through the filter yet, in about 8 years. Doesn't mean something won't eventually, but my attitude is that if there really is a good argument out there, it will propagate and I'll hear about it eventually. No need to waste my time scouring the primary theological literature because one of them might end up being a good argument. If it is good, it will rise to the top of the pile.<br /><br />But again, that's the perspective of someone that spent a lot of time on this stuff, and got sick of it. I remember as an undergrad (I was a math major) I wrote a long two-part article for the school paper using simple mathematical arguments against young earth creationism (e.g., calculating the required volume of the ark, other fish-in-barrel type arguments). That was back when Gish and Morris were all the rage.<br /><br />Many years later, after going to churches and learning their arguments, talking to dozens of these folks, it was clear how different their orientation toward argumentation and evidence was. There are good reasons no other discipline has an 'apologetics' branch. It's a foreign country, and after visiting there for a while, it was good to get back home where things aren't decided ahead of time. <br /><br />Enough people told me that Dembski was the bomb, that he was the real deal, that I spent many months working through his book the Design Inference. Another egg, simply obvious problems with it. Later when I pushed those people on what they liked, it was clear they hadn't read or understood his work, they were just parroting apologetic talking points. So now my filter is much stronger: it has to be people with expertise in the mathematics, people that I have prior reason to trust. <br /><br />Since then I've wasted no time with this crap. But as I said, I will go back if anything rises to the top of the heap. <br /><br />You have to choose what you will not learn before you die. Every choice about what you will spend time on, is a choice to stay ignorant about something else. E.g., I am ignorant of Rennaisance Poetry, I would love to know a lot about it, but given my priorities it just isn't something I'm going to learn about before I die. It is sad, it sucks, but ya' gotta make those decisions.<br /><br />That's why I find people like Loftus puzzling (aside from the fact that he still has the mentality of an apologist). Or atheistic philosophers of religion that continue to spend all this time wrapped up in that world. Go into science, produce what you think is right. Merleau-Ponty said, 'I find refutations uninteresting. It is far better to produce what one reproaches others for not bringing forth.' For young skeptics, for people embarking on intellectual persuits, I strongly advise go into science, math, whatever. Don't go into philosophy to study religion, do you want to look back having produced nothing but refutations your whole life? Or do you want to make a positive contribution?<br /><br />As far as anonymous commenters my new policy is to only respond when they aren't being trolls, and make an intelligent point that deserves my time.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69063612161312868332011-05-11T07:54:16.491-07:002011-05-11T07:54:16.491-07:00One Brow: that seems about right, which is why I f...<b>One Brow:</b> that seems about right, which is why I focused above on when I said:<br />"Much of their criticism involves wrangling over the probabilities you assign to individual events, and the plausibility you grant to specific claims in the Bible. This is indeed likely the most crucial debate, in fact, that can't be decided by math: it's what determines what numbers to plug into the equations."<br /><br />The McGrews seem to technically avoid circularity by bracketing out the resurrection claim in question, while accepting everything else at "face value." Frankly, that seems a naive approach to a religious canon, especially one with the hermeneutic thickets associated with the New Testament. For instance, what of concerns about what early Christians actually thought about the resurrection (as discussed <a href="http://remnantofgiants.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/caseys-jesus-7-visions-of-jesus-resurrection/" rel="nofollow">here</a> and in the other posts)? It really isn't that clear at all. It seems there is no univocal answer.<br /><br />Given all this controversy, taking the text at "face value" actually means assenting to a tendentious interpretation of this religious canon, one that tends to make X likely, and then finding he likelihood of claim X to be high.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7185528916338059972011-05-11T07:53:32.410-07:002011-05-11T07:53:32.410-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27630541448623693942011-05-11T07:06:39.437-07:002011-05-11T07:06:39.437-07:00The paper basically says that if you assume the Ne...The paper basically says that if you assume the New testament is an accurate reflection of the claims of the individuals involved, with no application of selective recording of information, based on timelines very favorable to such a notion, then it is more likely the clais are based on real events. Not surprising given the giant caveat, and not convincing.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21216129073397286742011-05-11T01:42:54.245-07:002011-05-11T01:42:54.245-07:00"high probability of being fraudulent", ..."high probability of being fraudulent", obviously; "low probability of being true". Mercy, for an edit post function...Hiero5antnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17814104776619429672011-05-11T01:03:19.898-07:002011-05-11T01:03:19.898-07:00Thanks, Anonymous. From your gentle parody I now r...Thanks, Anonymous. From your gentle parody I now realize I was being a total racist to assign a low prior probability of this Nigerian banker email being fraudulent just because I've seen so many of them turn out that way in the past. Each argument should be evaluated in a historical vacuum.Hiero5antnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45955981425925999142011-05-10T18:50:28.514-07:002011-05-10T18:50:28.514-07:00Wait wait... I should've wrote:
"Yeah - ...Wait wait... I should've wrote:<br /><br />"Yeah - there's just a low prior probability that probabilistic arguments [FOR GOD] will turn out to be good ones, and we should ignore them."<br /><br />Only the ones for God or the supernatural are suspect. The other ones...those are okay.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90384600810321662952011-05-10T18:48:03.094-07:002011-05-10T18:48:03.094-07:00"It seems a clever argument, though frankly I..."It seems a clever argument, though frankly I have seen so many damned clever probabilistic arguments that end up with some supernaturalistic lunacy at the end that I pretty much ignore them at this point (sorry Tim)."<br /><br />Yeah - there's just a low prior probability that probabilistic arguments will turn out to be good ones, and we should ignore them. Yeah, that's a great one. I'm with BDK too. I, like BDK read Dembski's work already and I didn't like it. This counts heavily against the McGrews.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60695482440138270812011-05-10T11:57:20.158-07:002011-05-10T11:57:20.158-07:00GearHed it is smart to take your time with this st...GearHed it is smart to take your time with this stuff. People who formulate a response within an hour of seeing the article are typically going to embarass themselves. Pretty much definitional of the internet culture.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36512513951097209302011-05-10T09:18:51.903-07:002011-05-10T09:18:51.903-07:00...as it stands, I'm not really an important p......as it stands, I'm not really an important player in all this. I'm just a guy with an opinion, like everyone else in here.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44738525759898574932011-05-10T08:34:16.924-07:002011-05-10T08:34:16.924-07:00BDK said,
"...Much of their criticism involv...BDK said,<br /><br />"...Much of their criticism involves wrangling over the probabilities you assign to individual events, and the plausibility you grant to specific claims in the Bible. This is indeed likely the most crucial debate, in fact, that can't be decided by math: it's what determines what numbers to plug into the equations."<br /><br />This is the part I was objecting to on DC. Y'all may also take note that I haven't sent out an answer yet, as I was poring through the article in detail, along with gathering supplementary reference so that I would be able to make a cogent, educated and non-inflammatory response. The article deserves that much at least. I have other stuff going on in my life, and as I said on John's page, it may take me a couple of months to sort out the nuance without looking like an idiot in the end.<br /><br />But again, I'm with BDK when he says "It seems a clever argument, though frankly I have seen so many damned clever probabilistic arguments that end up with some supernaturalistic lunacy at the end that I pretty much ignore them at this point (sorry Tim)."GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3377572023524537832011-05-09T19:07:54.647-07:002011-05-09T19:07:54.647-07:00Anon,
I have a small, introductory bibliography o...Anon,<br /><br />I have a small, introductory bibliography on the subject here: http://homepages.wmich.edu/~mcgrew/bayes.htmTimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09752886510692318211noreply@blogger.com