Science Denial is Not a Choice

[Danmark]

Watching Diane Sawyer’s interview with Bruce Jenner tonight on 20/20 I realized something that has been puzzling me. There is a common psychological issue or learning disorder that is associated with religious thinking, at least for some religious people, particularly with Muslims and Christians. I’m not sure if it comes from deference to authority or simplistic thinking or both… or other factors in combination. But this much I’ve observed: there is a common thread running through their thinking that seems to converge on not accepting facts that disrupt simple stereotypes.

We talk about “science denial,� but it is much more pervasive than just denying the science of evolution and denying the ancient age of the Earth despite the overwhelming evidence. Recently I realized science denial is involved when it comes to the obvious fact that manmade contributions to air pollution contribute to climate change.

What clarified this for me is the transgender issue. A segment of Christians and apparently an even larger segment of Muslims have long been in denial about same sex gender attraction being a something that is not a choice.

More recently we have the issue that has become more openly talked about because of Bruce Jenner. Here is a guy who set a world record in the decathlon, proclaimed the world’s greatest athlete, who has achieved the masculine ideal, yet he has always known he is female inside, not male despite his outward appearance. He is heterosexual, attracted to women not men, but he has always felt he was not a male deep within his psyche. Science supports this issue that gender attraction and gender identification are two separate issues. Because he has felt he has no choice but to be who he is, Jenner has suffered both economic and social consequences. Why would someone choose to be this way if it were not so compelling as to not be a choice at all?

But these facts seem impossible for a large segment of religious folk to accept. It struck me that expecting them to accept the truth, the facts, the evidence regarding homosexuality, transgender issues, evolution and other scientific evidence is impossible for them; that it is just as crazy to expect them to accept this reality as it is for the rest of us to accept that they cannot help but think they way they do. They are not being obstinate or evil or mean spirited. They simply cannot accept or appreciate what seems so obvious to others. Hence they deny the facts science presents and honestly believe there is a conspiracy among scientists to pervert the truth.

I don’t pretend to understand why this is so, but I am willing to accept that their science denial is as rigidly fixed as is gender attraction and identity. In other words, perhaps they have no more choice about denying scientific truth than homosexuals and heterosexuals have in denying who they are attracted to.

So, the affirmative of this subtopic is:
The refusal to accept evolution, a billions of years old Earth, climate change, homosexuality, and transgender issues is:
A. Science denial
B. These issues are related
C. Religious belief plays a role in denying the science behind these facts
D. People who deny these facts have little or no choice in their denial (they can't help it).

Finally, more for discussion than debate: "What is it about these religions that in large segments, causes the denial of obvious truths as confirmed by scientific discovery and experiments?

[H.sapiens]

Although you ask me what scientific theory was posited that rejects the premise of evolution, may I ask you what scientific theory supports it? Isn’t it possible to come to a conclusion simply by common sense even before having to arrive at a theory?

No it is not logical to have a conclusion even before having to arrive at a theory, that’s bad science biases the results.

I ask again after asking others many times before: If you walk alone on a beach and find a sandcastle, would you conclude that someone was there to make the sandcastle or that it would be a chance product of the wind and waves over a long period of time? Please? Would you find it necessary to have a scientist form a theory to explain the possibility of someone having been there?

The conclusion you are struggling to justify is a non sequitur.

If the sandcastle points to involvement of a person that was on the scene, how much more does the magnificent order around us that’s far more complex point to involvement of a much greater intelligence than us humans? Is there any need to fear the reality of such?

Your analogy is invalid.

As for me, do you think that I reject evolution because of religious belief? My answer is “yes� in the sense that genuine Biblical religion is based on the foundation of Truth. That automatically precludes belief on anything not supported by truth. What foundation is evolution based on? Please?

Your construct requires a leap of faith to the unsupported logical frame of your religion being based on something other than imagination. While you may believe anything that you want, when you trot it out in public, especially in a debate form that specifically precludes the very argument that you are trying to make … well, then you are both breaking the rules and treading on the very sort of preaching behavior that is specifically prohibited.

Random House tells us that science is “a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: [such as] the mathematical sciences.� The Latin word for “science� is “knowledge.� But isn’t knowledge gained by many other ways than observation and experimentation (The scientific method)? What about the many things simply told us? Was it necessary for scientists to prove that your name is yours or did you simply believe your parents?

“Random House?� What’s that? Use a meaningful and authoritative source please and stop attempting to engage in a purely semantic argument that begs the real questions.

The KJV Bible contains two occurrences of the word, “science� and 169 occurrence of the word “knowledge.� Please note the following scripture I happened to find while seeking these occurrences:
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: (1 Timothy 6:20)�
Please note the phrase, “falsely so called� that modifies the word, “science.� I ask again after many times before: what scientific law supports evolution, please?

Who cares? Your bible may be an “authority� in your home, but it is not one here.

In reference to your post #97, what if I ask you to show me evidence that God doesn’t exist?

Then you have done two things, commited the logical fallacy of onus probandi and asked someone to prove a negative, an impossible feat.

My presupposition that God does exists is based on much. I was told that He exists and that a document called the Bible backs up what I was told by my parents, etc. Even if not told, each of us have a conscience that convicts and all have violated that conscience one way or the other.

What you have been told is not evidence and what the Bible says is not evidence either.

How may you or I know that the presupposition that God exists is correct? Have you considered the sampling of reasons I gave below that serve as evidence?:

I did not see any “reasons� that would so serve.

1. People throughout all ages and cultures worship some god or the other. Even those that claim to serve no god live by philosophies with absolutes as if from some kind of sovereignty.

That’s a logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum.

2. Have you considered the countless times you heard of God mentioned in conversations? Even if an idea you received of Him isn’t clear, have you considered the abundance of material available to clarify?

That’s a logical fallacy: another argumentum ad populum.

3. You and I are fortunate that much written material is available to tell us who God is and contain countless subjects about Him. The luxury of the availability of material and to be in the presence of so many that talk of God is rare.

That’s a logical fallacy: third time’s a charm: argumentum ad populum.

4. Have you ever met anyone or a group who have accepted and received God at His calling and are thus convinced and testify of Him? What about the many books by authors that testify of Him?

That’s a mixture of logical fallacies: argumentum ab auctoritate seasoned with argumentum ad populum.

5. We that testify of God speak as witnesses of personal encounters with Him. What better evidence is there than that of a witness? There is a natural and supernatural side of all of us.

I call that an “augment from Son of Sam.� He have personal encounters through the neighbor’s dog who instructed him to go out and shoot people, every bit as real to him as god is to those who “witness.� BTW: Eyewitness testimony, especially when repeated over and over, has been shown to be notoriously undependable.

6. Have you considered that His existence and His spoken words are documented in a book called the Bible that tells us that more than enough is around us that silently points to the reality of His existence?

The problem is that the Bible you think of so highly is, in so many places, demonstrably incorrect. It contradicts and impeaches itself so many times that none of it can be considered reliable and accuracy appears to be strictly accidental.

7. Are you familiar with a group of people called Jews that gave us the Bible that documents the reality of God? What about a nation called Israel that’s smaller than Rhode Island but always in the news?

You’re depending on Moses, whom even Hebrew scholars discount, an Exodus that never occurred, etc. to document the “reality� of god? You’d do better watching “reality TV.�

8.If Texas went to war against Rhode Island, which do you think would win? But Israel won many miraculous victories against nations much larger than her! Do you perceive any possibility of their having received help from any Person above the natural?
None of Israel’s “victories� were miraculous, many were not even victories and those that were appear to be pyrrhic in retrospect. If that’s the best example you can come up with for the power of your god … you’re in deep do-do.
I can go on and on.

I’m sure you can … but to what end?

I continually assure myself of His presence and goodness by thanksgiving and praise for His goodness.

That’s nice.

Do we need elite scientists to verify God’s calling to us? What better way is there to verify than obedience to His calling based on good conscience that opens up to much greater knowledge? But that necessitates overcoming the rebelliousness of human nature that’s inherent in us all.

I’d settle for objective and rational evidence from ordinary scientists myself.

Scientists continually reveal much to convince us of the universal presence of God.

Can you identify some objective and rational evidence that scientists have recently revealed?

[ttruscott]

...

Finally, more for discussion than debate: "What is it about these religions that in large segments, causes the denial of obvious truths as confirmed by scientific discovery and experiments?

We know science cannot measure spiritual things and we also know they are not trustworthy in the physical world...being heir to the same sutupidiy, culpability, greed and pride as everyone else:

In support I offer:

JUNE 15, 2015

The crimes and misdemeanors of science used to be handled mostly
in-house, with a private word at the faculty club, barbed questions at
a conference, maybe a quiet dismissal. On the rare occasion when a
journal publicly retracted a study, it typically did so in a cryptic
footnote. Few were the wiser; many retracted studies have been cited
as legitimate evidence by others years after the fact.

But that gentlemen’s world has all but evaporated, as a remarkable
series of events last month demonstrated. In mid-May, after two
graduate students raised questions about a widely reported study on
how political canvassing affects opinions of same-sex marriage,
editors at the journal Science, where the study was published, began
to investigate. What followed was a frenzy of second-guessing,
accusations and commentary from all corners of the Internet:
“Retraction� as serial drama, rather than footnote. Science officially
pulled the paper, by Michael LaCour of the University of California,
Los Angeles, and Donald Green of Columbia, on May 28, because of
concerns about Mr. LaCour’s data.

“Until recently it was unusual for us to report on studies that were
not yet retracted,� said Dr. Ivan Oransky, an editor of the blog
Retraction Watch, the first news media outlet to report that the study
had been challenged. But new technology and a push for transparency
from younger scientists have changed that, he said. “We have more tips
than we can handle.�

The case has played out against an increase in retractions that has
alarmed many journal editors and authors. Scientists in fields as
diverse as neurobiology, anesthesia and economics are debating how to
reduce misconduct, without creating a police-state mentality that
undermines creativity and collaboration.

“It’s an extraordinary time,� said Brian Nosek, a professor of
psychology at the University of Virginia, and a founder of the Center
for Open Science, which provides a free service through which labs can
share data and protocols. “We are now seeing a number of efforts to
push for data repositories to facilitate direct replications of
findings.�

But that push is not universally welcomed. Some senior scientists have
argued that replication often wastes resources. “Isn’t reproducibility
the bedrock of science? Yes, up to a point,� the cancer biologist Mina
Bissell wrote in a widely circulated blog post. “But it is sometimes
much easier not to replicate than to replicate studies,� especially
when the group trying to replicate does not have the specialized
knowledge or skill to do so.

The experience of Retraction Watch provides a rough guide to where
this debate is going and why. Dr. Oransky, who has a medical degree
from New York University, and Adam Marcus, both science journalists,
discovered a mutual interest in retractions about five years ago and
founded the blog as a side project. They had, and still have, day
jobs: Mr. Marcus, 46, is the managing editor ofGastroenterology &
Endoscopy News, and Dr. Oransky, 42, is the editorial director
ofMedPage Today (he will take a position as distinguished writer in
residence at N.Y.U. later this year).

In its first year, the blog broke a couple of retraction stories that
hit the mainstream news media — including a case involving data faked
by an anesthesiologist who later served time for health care fraud.
The site now has about 150,000 unique visitors a month, about half
from outside the United States.

Dr. Oransky and Mr. Marcus are partisans who editorialize sharply
against poor oversight and vague retraction notices. But their focus
on evidence over accusations distinguishes them from watchdog
forerunners who sometimes came off as ad hominem cranks. Last year,
their site won a $400,000 grant from the John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation, to build out their database, and they plan to
work with Dr. Nosek to manage the data side.

Their data already tell a story.

The blog has charted a 20 to 25 percent increase in retractions across
some 10,000 medical and science journals in the past five years: 500
to 600 a year today from 400 in 2010. (The number in 2001 was 40,
according to previous research.) The primary causes of this surge are
far from clear. The number of papers published is higher than ever,
and journals have proliferated, Dr. Oransky and other experts said.
New tools for detecting misconduct, like plagiarism-sifting software,
are widely available, so there’s reason to suspect that the surge is a
simple product of better detection and larger volume.

Still, the pressure to publish attention-grabbing findings is stronger
than ever, these experts said — and so is the ability to “borrow� and
digitally massage data. Retraction Watch’s records suggest that about
a third of retractions are because of errors, like tainted samples or
mistakes in statistics, and about two-thirds are because of misconduct
or suspicions of misconduct.

The most common reason for retraction because of misconduct is image
manipulation, usually of figures or diagrams, a form of deliberate
data massaging or, in some cases, straight plagiarism. In their
dissection of the LaCour-Green paper, the two graduate students —
David Broockman, now an assistant professor at Stanford, and Joshua
Kalla, at California-Berkeley — found that a central figure in Mr.
LaCour’s analysis looked nearly identical to one from another study.
This and other concerns led Dr. Green, who had not seen any original
data, to request a retraction. (Mr. LaCour has denied borrowing
anything.)

Data massaging can take many forms. It can mean simply excluding
“outliers� — unusually high or low data points — from an analysis to
generate findings that more strongly support the hypothesis. It also
includes moving the goal posts: that is, mining the data for results
first, and then writing the paper as if the experiment had been an
attempt to find just those effects. “You have exploratory findings,
and you’re pitching them as ‘I knew this all along,’ as confirmatory,�
Dr. Nosek said.

The second leading cause is plagiarizing text, followed by
republishing — presenting the same results in two or more journals.

The fourth category is faked data. No one knows the rate of fraud with
any certainty. In a 2011 survey of more than 2,000 psychologists,
about 1 percent admitted to falsifying data. Other studies have
estimated a rate of about 2 percent. Yet one offender can do a lot of
damage. The Dutch social psychologist Diederik Stapel published dozens
of studies in major journals for nearly a decade based on faked data,
investigators at the universities where he had worked concluded in
2011. Suspicions were first raised by two of his graduate students.

“If I’m a scientist and I fabricate data and put that online, others
are going to assume this is accurate data,� said John Budd, a
professor at the University of Missouri and an author of one of the
first exhaustive analyses of retractions, in 1999. “There’s no way to
know� without inside information.

Here, too, Retraction Watch provides a possible solution. Many of the
egregious cases that it posts come from tips. The tipsters are a
growing cadre of scientists, specialized journalists and other experts
who share the blog’s mission — and are usually not insiders working
directly with a suspected offender. One of the blog’s most effective
allies has been Dr. Steven Shafer, the current editor of the journal
Anesthesia & Analgesia who is now at Stanford, whose aggressiveness in
re-examining published papers has led to scores of retractions. The
field of anesthesia is a leader in retractions, largely because of Dr.
Shafer’s efforts, Mr. Marcus and Dr. Oransky said. (Psychology is
another leader, largely because of Dr. Stapel.)

Other cases emerge from issues raised at post-publication sites, where
scientists dig into papers, sometimes anonymously. Dr. Broockman, one
of the two who challenged the LaCour-Green paper, had first made
public some of his suspicions anonymously on a message board
calledpoliscirumors.com. Mr. Marcus said Retraction Watch closely
followed a similar site, PubPeer.com. “When it first popped up, a lot
of people assumed it would be an ax-grinding place,� he said. “But
while some contributors have overstepped, I think it has had a
positive impact on the literature.�

What these various tipsters, anonymous post-reviewers and
whistle-blowers have in common is a nose for data that looks too good
to be true, he said. Sites like Retraction Watch and PubPeer give them
a place to discuss their concerns and flag fishy-looking data.

These, along with data repositories like Dr. Nosek’s, may render moot
the debate over how to exhaustively replicate findings. That burden is
likely to be eased by the community of bad-science bloodhounds who
have more and more material to work with when they pick up a foul
scent.

“At this point, we see ourselves as part of an ecosystem that is
advocating for increased transparency,� Dr. Oransky said. “And that
ecosystem is growing.�

I repeat this paragraph about modern scientific method which can't even be called science at all:

“We are now seeing a number of efforts to
push for data repositories to facilitate direct replications of
findings.�

But that push is not universally welcomed. Some senior scientists have
argued that replication often wastes resources. “Isn’t reproducibility
the bedrock of science? Yes, up to a point,� the cancer biologist Mina
Bissell wrote in a widely circulated blog post. “But it is sometimes
much easier not to replicate than to replicate studies,� especially
when the group trying to replicate does not have the specialized
knowledge or skill to do so.

Peace, Ted

[H.sapiens]

...

Finally, more for discussion than debate: "What is it about these religions that in large segments, causes the denial of obvious truths as confirmed by scientific discovery and experiments?

We know science cannot measure spiritual things and we also know they are not trustworthy in the physical world...being heir to the same sutupidiy, culpability, greed and pride as everyone else:

Science cannot measure spiritual things ... perhaps because there is nothing there to measure?

You are contrasting a few bad apples, whom the scientific community bends every effort to eliminate, with all of the divines who sell sacred snake-oil full time and then add their own particular personal predilections for pederasty and whore-mongering on top, but yet who are "forgiven" by their dupes over and over and over again?

In support I offer:

JUNE 15, 2015

The crimes and misdemeanors of science ...

I repeat this paragraph about modern scientific method which can't even be called science at all:

“We are now seeing a number of efforts to
push for data repositories to facilitate direct replications of
findings.�

But that push is not universally welcomed. Some senior scientists have
argued that replication often wastes resources. “Isn’t reproducibility
the bedrock of science? Yes, up to a point,� the cancer biologist Mina
Bissell wrote in a widely circulated blog post. “But it is sometimes
much easier not to replicate than to replicate studies,� especially
when the group trying to replicate does not have the specialized
knowledge or skill to do so.

One of two things happens to a piece of scientific work after publication: either it slides into obscurity, is never cited and never serves as the basis of anything else or it is pulled front and center, cited often and becomes a foundation for a lot of offshoot efforts conducted by many different researchers and labs.

Identification of and effective treatment of the former, whilst highly satisfying especially to those cursed with feelings of moral superiority, is in reality an abysmal waste of effort and is (as the saying goes) "throwing good money after bad." It will have severe and salubrious effect on the malefactors but as far as the temple of science is concerned, little real effect since, since such work is non-foundational and can sit, with little or no effect, just a little pile of rubble on the roof of the temple.

Now the latter is a far more serious problem since anyone using those sorts of fabrications in the development of new hypothesis for testing will be embarking on a fool's errand. The fortunate thing is the the foundational fabrication will likely be detected when the second generation results go askew. This will, almost inevitably result in the second generation project being redirected to attempt to reproduce the initial study; and will result in detection of the initial malfeasance. My only complaint is that the infliction of penalties is not more open and public to serve as deterrent to others. I favor a highly public swearing-out ceremony, but then, the divines can't seem to pull that one off either.

[Goat]

[Replying to Goat]


Hello DanieltheDragon and Goat,

I will answer you in the order of occurrence.

For you, Daniel,

Although you ask me what scientific theory was posited that rejects the premise of evolution, may I ask you what scientific theory supports it? Isn’t it possible to come to a conclusion simply by common sense even before having to arrive at a theory?

This is very badly worded, and shows a very strong lack of understanding of what a theory is. The Theory of Evolution is the theory. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution exists, because it has been observed in nature. The theory of evolutions is the model of why it happens.

First, let's go and define what is meant by biological evolution.

Technically, biological evolution is 'The change of frequency of alleles over generations" (An allele is a variation of a gene). Of course, the TOE is older than the knowledge of Genes, so that is a more updated version of the definition 'Decent with modification.' This is directly observed, through the use of fossil evidence, and in the laboratory, as well as observations outside of the laboratory in nature.

The Theory of Evolution is WHY does this happen. The idea that Darwin came up with is that when there are offspring, there are differences between the various offspring (modification). Those offspring that are slightly better adapted to the environment to survive are the ones that have a slight advantage to reproduce than those who are less adapted to the environment. This causes species to adapt to their environment, and when the environment changes, either the species adapts, or it goes extinct. If a species goes extinct, it leaves a spot for another species to adapt to the niche left open by the one that couldn't adapt to the changing environment.

I ask again after asking others many times before: If you walk alone on a beach and find a sandcastle, would you conclude that someone was there to make the sandcastle or that it would be a chance product of the wind and waves over a long period of time? Please? Would you find it necessary to have a scientist form a theory to explain the possibility of someone having been there?

This is a variation of the 'watchmakers' argument from Paley. This was given first in 1802 in Paley in his book 'Natural Theology or Evidences of Existence and Attributes of a Deity". However, it is what is known as a 'weak analogy' and is a teleological argument. As a matter of fact, it is the idea that Darwin came up with less than 60 years later that came up with why the 'argument from design' is so bad. You see, you can get the appearance of design if with the application of a filter. In the case of natural structures, you have the filter of 'survival'. An arch, such as can be seen in the Midwest, is because the structure survived the various forces, such as erosion and gravity.


In the case of evolution,, you have the filter of natural selection. Those organisms that have traits that are beneficial to survival will reproduce and pass on those traits, and those have less favorable traits will not reproduce as much.
Tiny differences of offspring over time can add up to huge differences, if the changes are supported by the environment , and give reproductive advantage. This filter also gives the appearance of design. Sometimes, it appears effective, other times, because the variation only works with what is already there, the result is very jury rigged (the larynx nerve in a Giraffe for example, or the human eye is overly complex)

If the sandcastle points to involvement of a person that was on the scene, how much more does the magnificent order around us that’s far more complex point to involvement of a much greater intelligence than us humans? Is there any need to fear the reality of such?

The process is explained above, but this is a classical example of 'argument from personal incredulity' also known as 'argument from ignorance'. The process is explained above on how the appearance of 'design' might happen, but it be from totally unintelligent processes without a goal.

As for me, do you think that I reject evolution because of religious belief? My answer is “yes� in the sense that genuine Biblical religion is based on the foundation of Truth. That automatically precludes belief on anything not supported by truth. What foundation is evolution based on? Please?

The foundation of the Theory of Evolution is based on observation, and concepts that are testable and repeatable. It is based on the historical record as found in the fossil record, observations when it comes to the genes of every living thing, and the ability to predict what will be found. It is based on experiments in the laboratory that attempts to both confirm and falsify what is thought to occur in nature. It is base on actual observation, and testability, not what someone wrote in a book.

Random House tells us that science is “a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: [such as] the mathematical sciences.� The Latin word for “science� is “knowledge.� But isn’t knowledge gained by many other ways than observation and experimentation (The scientific method)? What about the many things simply told us? Was it necessary for scientists to prove that your name is yours or did you simply believe your parents?

That is a very very weak definitions of science. Science deals with knowledge yes, but it employs the scientific method to help confirm that truth of it's propositions. It does that through the concept of falsifiability and testing. A proposition is repeated tested to see if it can be falsified.

What you are doing is the logical fallacy of equivocation. A name is a definition. Science deals with the physical world, not the arbitrary labels of social conventions. You are mixing up apples and oranges there.

The KJV Bible contains two occurrences of the word, “science� and 169 occurrence of the word “knowledge.� Please note the following scripture I happened to find while seeking these occurrences:


“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: (1 Timothy 6:20)�

And, translation is interpretation. The concept of the scientific method, and it's use really didn't come to full swing until much later. Frankly, a pat phrase , mistranslated, from a pseudographical work really doesn't impress me.

Please note the phrase, “falsely so called� that modifies the word, “science.� I ask again after many times before: what scientific law supports evolution, please?

Please read my entire response, and it explains things,.. I'll respond to the rest in the next post.

[Goat]

For you, Goat:

In reference to your post #97, what if I ask you to show me evidence that God doesn’t exist?

My presupposition that God does exists is based on much. I was told that He exists and that a document called the Bible backs up what I was told by my parents, etc. Even if not told, each of us have a conscience that convicts and all have violated that conscience one way or the other.

So, you have been told he exists, and the Bible said he does. So?? Can you show that what you were told, and the Bible is true? How do you know that? The bible is a collection of books, that have different intentions in it. Some parts are theological, other parts are history, and some is basically religious law. What can you do to show that the supernatural claims of the bible are true. What kind of verication can you do to demonstrate in a public manner (not just to yourself), that those are true? How do you filter out confirmation bias?

Is it something more that 'I have a feeling'?? and 'These people told me'?

How may you or I know that the presupposition that God exists is correct? Have you considered the sampling of reasons I gave below that serve as evidence?:

1. People throughout all ages and cultures worship some god or the other. Even those that claim to serve no god live by philosophies with absolutes as if from some kind of sovereignty.

This is the logical fallacy known as 'argument by popularity'. Just because all these people said it, it has to be true. That does not necessarily follow.

2. Have you considered the countless times you heard of God mentioned in conversations? Even if an idea you received of Him isn’t clear, have you considered the abundance of material available to clarify?

More 'argument by popularity'. What I don't see if 'how do you verify that concept is true'. Just because 'They said it' doesn't mean that they were correct.

3. You and I are fortunate that much written material is available to tell us who God is and contain countless subjects about Him. The luxury of the availability of material and to be in the presence of so many that talk of God is rare.

And, what do you have that can be verified, and is more that 'Because they say so'? I consider the bible 'Because they say so'.

4. Have you ever met anyone or a group who have accepted and received God at His calling and are thus convinced and testify of Him? What about the many books by authors that testify of Him?

People fool themselves. Testimony is just a variation of 'because they say so'. Well, I need something more than that.

5. We that testify of God speak as witnesses of personal encounters with Him. What better evidence is there than that of a witness? There is a natural and supernatural side of all of us.

And how can you show me that you are not just fooling yourself, because that is what you want to believe? Can you show there is an actual 'supernatural' side of use , or even define it properly?? Can you show that you are not having confirmation bias, and see at 'this is something I really really want, therefore it's God? What can you do to SHOW ME, rather than just TELL ME.

6. Have you considered that His existence and His spoken words are documented in a book called the Bible that tells us that more than enough is around us that silently points to the reality of His existence?

Yes, I have read the bible. However, the same questions for that is for what I gave you. I don't see any evidence that it was inspired by a supernatural entity, but rather it seems to be the product of purely human efforts to me.

7. Are you familiar with a group of people called Jews that gave us the Bible that documents the reality of God? What about a nation called Israel that’s smaller than Rhode Island but always in the news?

If you look at the left side, under my name, you will see the groups I belong to. That should let you know. I probably know much more about Judaism that you do.

8.If Texas went to war against Rhode Island, which do you think would win? But Israel won many miraculous victories against nations much larger than her! Do you perceive any possibility of their having received help from any Person above the natural?

Technology and training has a lot to do with it, particularly training. God is not required.

[instantc]

.

1. People throughout all ages and cultures worship some god or the other. Even those that claim to serve no god live by philosophies with absolutes as if from some kind of sovereignty.

That’s a logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum.

This is a statement of fact, not a logical fallacy.

For future reference, a logical fallacy is an argument that is rendered invalid due to its erroneous logical structure. This requires that a conclusion is made from premises where that conclusion does not in fact follow from those premises.

[H.sapiens]

.

1. People throughout all ages and cultures worship some god or the other. Even those that claim to serve no god live by philosophies with absolutes as if from some kind of sovereignty.

That’s a logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum.

This is a statement of fact, not a logical fallacy.

For future reference, a logical fallacy is an argument that is rendered invalid due to its erroneous logical structure. This requires that a conclusion is made from premises where that conclusion does not in fact follow from those premises.

That's exactly what you did, you reached a conclusion that does not in fact follow from the premises. Can't you see that?

[instantc]

.

1. People throughout all ages and cultures worship some god or the other. Even those that claim to serve no god live by philosophies with absolutes as if from some kind of sovereignty.

That’s a logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum.

This is a statement of fact, not a logical fallacy.

For future reference, a logical fallacy is an argument that is rendered invalid due to its erroneous logical structure. This requires that a conclusion is made from premises where that conclusion does not in fact follow from those premises.

That's exactly what you did, you reached a conclusion that does not in fact follow from the premises. Can't you see that?

First, I'm not the one you quoted originally.

Second, what was the conclusion and what were the premises from which the conclusion was falsely drawn in your opinion? As far as I can see, the other user didn't even make a deductive argument, let alone a fallacious one.

Notice that argumentum ad populum is a formal fallacy. It does not apply to an inductive argument, for the popularity of an idea may in some instances very well be indicative of its truthfulness.

[H.sapiens]

.

1. People throughout all ages and cultures worship some god or the other. Even those that claim to serve no god live by philosophies with absolutes as if from some kind of sovereignty.

That’s a logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum.

This is a statement of fact, not a logical fallacy.

For future reference, a logical fallacy is an argument that is rendered invalid due to its erroneous logical structure. This requires that a conclusion is made from premises where that conclusion does not in fact follow from those premises.

That's exactly what you did, you reached a conclusion that does not in fact follow from the premises. Can't you see that?

First, I'm not the one you quoted originally.

Second, what was the conclusion and what were the premises from which the conclusion was falsely drawn in your opinion? As far as I can see, the other user didn't even make a deductive argument, let alone a fallacious one.

Notice that argumentum ad populum is a formal fallacy. It does not apply to an inductive argument, for the popularity of an idea may in some instances very well be indicative of its truthfulness.

But you jumped into it anyway.

The conclusion was unstated, but basically it was "Goddidit."

The simple popularity of a an idea is never, in and of itself, an indication of its truthfulness


Argumentum ad populum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Ad populum" redirects here. For the Catholic liturgical term, see Versus populum.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy (also known as a vox populi),[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.

[instantc]

The conclusion was unstated, but basically it was "Goddidit."

Correct, he did not state a conclusion, and therefore he did not make a deductive argument, let alone a fallacious one. Merely stating that lots of people believe in something is not an argumentation fallacy. Just like merely stating something about the other person is not an ad hominem fallacy.

The simple popularity of a an idea is never, in and of itself, an indication of its truthfulness

I disagree. If, for example everybody at home and at work seems to believe that the main street is closed due to construction work, then that's most likely the case.

Obviously it does not logically follow that there is a roadblock because everyone believes it, but the mere fact that lots of people uniformly believe so is indicative of the truthfulness of that proposition.

Similarly, I have never looked at the road traffic regulations and confirmed that walking against the red light is illegal. The mere fact that everyone seems to believe so strongly indicates that that's the case.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

Notice that the bolded sentence is a deductive argument and, as such, invalid. If it were stated in the form of an inductive argument, i.e. "if many believe X, it is more likely to be true", then, depending on the instance, it could be true.