Rock at the bottom of the hill

[Zzyzx]

.
Two people come across a very large boulder at the base of a mountain.

Mr T says -- ‘God put that boulder here to ___________’ (whatever).

Mr S -- The composition of that boulder exactly matches rock strata at the top of the mountain. It is rational to conclude that it fell from that level

Mr T – No one saw it fall and there is no assurance it came from above. Therefore, you can’t say that it did.

Mr S – The processes of weathering and erosion are reasonably well understood. The force of gravity provides the mechanism.

Mr T – You can’t prove what makes gravity work. Physicists don’t know.

Mr S – Ever notice that a rock falls when you drop it?

Mr T – That is micro-gravity and you can’t prove that is what makes the rock fall


Questions for debate:

1. Which of the above positions is more convincing to you?

2. Is it necessary to observe an event to rationally conclude that it occurred?

[bjs]

.
Two people come across a very large boulder at the base of a mountain.

Mr T says -- ‘God put that boulder here to ___________’ (whatever).

Mr S -- The composition of that boulder exactly matches rock strata at the top of the mountain. It is rational to conclude that it fell from that level

These two positions do not appear to be mutually exclusive.

[Zzyzx]

.

Two people come across a very large boulder at the base of a mountain.

Mr T says -- ‘God put that boulder here to ___________’ (whatever).

Mr S -- The composition of that boulder exactly matches rock strata at the top of the mountain. It is rational to conclude that it fell from that level

These two positions do not appear to be mutually exclusive.

I disagree. The next sentence indicates that Mr T disputes the origin of the rock (‘from strata above’)

"Mr T – No one saw it fall and there is no assurance it came from above. Therefore, you can’t say that it did."

Additionally: Mr T made a positive assertion with ‘God put it there’ (that a supernatural entity was involved). When challenged with knowledge and reasoning Mr T responds by expressing disbelief / distrust in scientific knowledge rather than supporting the claim.

This is an example of belief over reasoning – similar to ‘you didn’t see evolution occurring so the God theories must be right’ (or whatever is similarly argued).


Edited to add: Or, 'My belief is equal to your knowledge' -- or 'My willful ignorance is equal to science.'

[bjs]

Additionally: Mr T made a positive assertion with ‘God put it there’ (that a supernatural entity was involved).

You should be more explicit in your arguments in the future. Saying “God put it there� does not have to mean supernatural act was involved. If that is your intent, very well. It is just not a necessary conclusion from what you wrote.

This is an example of belief over reasoning – similar to ‘you didn’t see evolution occurring so the God theories must be right’ (or whatever is similarly argued).

I assumed you were making an argument about evolution. If have no problem with the evolution, but I will note that this is a very poor and inaccurate analogy.

[Realworldjack]

.
Two people come across a very large boulder at the base of a mountain.

Mr T says -- ‘God put that boulder here to ___________’ (whatever).

Mr S -- The composition of that boulder exactly matches rock strata at the top of the mountain. It is rational to conclude that it fell from that level

Mr T – No one saw it fall and there is no assurance it came from above. Therefore, you can’t say that it did.

Mr S – The processes of weathering and erosion are reasonably well understood. The force of gravity provides the mechanism.

Mr T – You can’t prove what makes gravity work. Physicists don’t know.

Mr S – Ever notice that a rock falls when you drop it?

Mr T – That is micro-gravity and you can’t prove that is what makes the rock fall


Questions for debate:

1. Which of the above positions is more convincing to you?

2. Is it necessary to observe an event to rationally conclude that it occurred?

You have now opened 3 different OPs at this point, spinning off conversations that you an I have had, none of which accurately portray what was being communicated. I will start with this one, because it is much easier to demonstrate, and then will decide where, and if to proceed with the others.

First, it should be noted, that I have attempted to get an answer from you as to whether, "evolution in its totality" (namely meaning the human evolving from anything else) could be considered a, scientific fact, since it has not been observed, and a scientific fact would necessarily involve, observation, according to the definition.

After several attempts you have failed to answer this question, but have instead come up with different scenarios, much like the one we have here, seemily in an attempt to demonstrate how we can be confident that, "evolution in its totality" would be a fact, which I have successfully refuted.

So let us examine your scenario here, in order to determine how it may compare to our actual conversation.

Mr T says -- ‘God put that boulder here to ___________’ (whatever).

The thing is, I never inferred that we should even consider that any sort of god had anything to do with placing the boulder. Rather, it would have been you who brought the supernatural into the equation when you said,

Shall we conclude that a supernatural force placed the boulder

My response to this was exactly,

As far as the "supernatural" this should not even enter into the equation

Of course I did go on to say in that same sentence,

until, or unless, there may be certain witnesses who claimed to have witnessed the event. Of course at this point we should analyze their testimonies in order to determine if there could possibly be any legitimacy.

So this is certainly not to say, "we should ignore what we see with our eyes", but it is a fact that sometimes what we see is not the whole story, and the testimonies of the witnesses should be considered, until, or unless these witnesses are determined to be unreasonable.

So then, to be clear, if you and I were at the base of this mountain, I would never suggest that we should consider, "god did it."

Mr S -- The composition of that boulder exactly matches rock strata at the top of the mountain. It is rational to conclude that it fell from that level

Absolutely! This would be a rational conclusion to draw. What would be irrational is to say, "we can now classify this as a scientific fact." Because you see, there are certain restrictions on what would constitute a scientific fact, and for good reasons. One of which is the understanding that, what meets the eye, is not always the whole story.

Therefore, we may say, "the best conclusion we can draw from the evidence is, the boulder fell from above", but we cannot say this conclusion must, and has to be a fact, because we understand there may be factors that our eyes did not, or could not see, and this would have nothing to do with the supernatural. In other words, there could be other natural causes that we would not know about.

This is why we do not insist something to be a scientific fact, until, or unless, it has been observed, tested, and verified.

Mr T – No one saw it fall and there is no assurance it came from above. Therefore, you can’t say that it did.

This is true. However, allow me to put it in more scientific terms, using evolution in its totality, instead of a boulder, keeping in mind that this quote comes from those who would be in complete support of evolution in its totality.

Technically, evolution, in its totality, should not be called a fact; it does not quite match the generally accepted definition of a scientific fact. However, it has been tested many times, and we see so many examples of the process, along with an abundance of evidence pointing to it, and no evidence against it

You see? It is that simple. You can draw all the conclusions you like. However, until it has been observed, tested, and verified, it cannot be called a fact, and with good reason.

Mr S – The processes of weathering and erosion are reasonably well understood. The force of gravity provides the mechanism.

Absolutely, and it is certainly fine to draw your own conclusions, but there could be other natural mechanisms that could be unknown, which is one of the reasons, it would not be referred to as a fact.

Mr T – You can’t prove what makes gravity work. Physicists don’t know.

I do not recall anyone making such an argument, and it seems sort of silly. However, knowing how "gravity works" would in no way ensure that the boulder must, and had to come from above.

Mr S – Ever notice that a rock falls when you drop it?

Yes, and there is a tremendous rock in the state of Georgia, which is called, Stone Mountain. Should I assume that it was "dropped there from above" simply because we know rocks fall when dropped?

Mr T – That is micro-gravity and you can’t prove that is what makes the rock fall

Far better put in my opinion would be. There is a tremendous amount of evidence to support the boulder coming from above, with no evidence to suggest anything else would have been involved.Technically though, this theory should not be referred to as a fact, because it does not quite measure up to the standard to be considered a scientific fact.

You see, you are making arguments that no one has made, and then easily tearing them down. I wonder what that would be referred to as?

1. Which of the above positions is more convincing to you?

I don't believe it has a thing to do with what would be more convincing to me?

As an example, as I look at the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, I am convinced by this evidence that the Resurrection did indeed occur. So then, can, and should I refer to this as a fact? Or, should I acknowledge that it was not observed, demonstrated, and cannot be verified to be a fact?

As far as the boulder is concerned, should I say, "it is a known fact that the boulder fell from above?" Or, would it be better to say, "I have been convinced by the evidence that the boulder came from above, although it was not observed, cannot be demonstrated, and verified to be a fact?"

2. Is it necessary to observe an event to rationally conclude that it occurred?

Absolutely not! I have rationally concluded that the Resurrection did indeed occur, and I, nor anyone else observed it. What would be irrational would be to insist that it would be a verifiable fact.

In the same way, it would be a rational conclusion that the boulder fell from above. What would be irrational would be to insist that it is a verifiable fact.

You act is if "rational conclusions" are always correct, when they are not necessarily so.

As an example, if my son has a curfew of midnight, and the newspaper is delivered at 4:00 am, and my son's front tire is exactly on top of the newspaper the next morning, would it be rational to come to the conclusion that he missed his curfew, and by at least 4 hours?

Yes, this would be a rational conclusion. However, there may be other factors involved which you may be unaware of, that would not involve my son missing his curfew. But I will assure you, when you get up at 7:00 am, and your son's front tire is directly on top of a paper that could not have possibly been delivered before 4:00 am, the evidence is surely against him, and it would not be irrational to draw the conclusion that he was guilty.

All of this, plus two more OPs, on top of several other posts, and I have still not received an answer as to whether, the human evolving from anything else, can, or should be referred to, as a scientific fact?

It seems to me you are saying, we should all go with what makes the most sense to us, which seems to be a reckless, and dangerous position to take?