a medical student and creationism?

[7starmantis]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Because only one PART of the statement is falsifiable the statement in its entirety IS NOT falsifiable. Thus my post remains correct

Semantics. If one part of this statement is false:

God created man in its current form"

Then we know God did not in fact create man in its current form. The statement is false. The secondary point of whether god created man is a separate statement. Semantics.

Who cares? 😛

 

[lejeunesage]

I disagree, the fact itself cannot be falsified, but the statement has the opportunity to be falsified (if false, can be shown to be false). If Ignoble goes back and changes the color of the text, the statement itself does not change, but it can be proved incorrect in light of new evidence. That the statement is falsifiable should not depend on the person reading the statement.

Even if evolutionary theory were factually correct, it can still be falsifiable so long as we can test specific predictions, and if they are incorrect, we can show that they are incorrect. Falsifiability is a specific kind of testability, and does not depend on the actual veracity of the statement.

I think one of Ignoble's (and Tina's) problems is assuming that scientific language will follow what one would expect the definition to be based on experience with English. In that case, an English-speaker might parse "falsifiable = able to be falsified", which is not the complete definition. The scientific definition of falsifiable has an added clause: "able to be falsified if false." Those last two words are extremely important, and seem to be where the breakdown is occurring.

Thank you👍

 

[lejeunesage]

😛

So aside from that tangent, I want to address one statement.

But isn't that only one way to look at "falsifying" the statement? You could also "falsify" it by showing humans have in fact existed or "come from" a form other than their current one. Isn't that what evolutionary theory is attempting? In fact, isn't that what evolutionary science has already done? So the statement is in fact falsifiable and as such has been proven false?

Yes?

Fine, but it still fails to address the part where a god is doing the creating. That can't be tested and is therefore not falsifiable.

 

[lejeunesage]

Now before we get started, I love semantics!

What you have here with "God created man in his current form" is a partially falsifiable statement. "In his current form" is falsifiable, "God created man" is not.

That's the issue. The theory that man has always existed in his current form is a perfectly valid scientific theory. We just have a lot of evidence to the contrary at this point. The issue is with the "God created man" part. That is not a scientific theory.

A good analogy would be the competition between the steady state and big bang theory of the universe.

👍

 

[oaklandguy]

Fine, but it still fails to address the part where a god is doing the creating. That can't be tested and is therefore not falsifiable.

It's not testable due to our lack of scientific ability to understand God.

 

[lejeunesage]

Hola. This is where I found the definition

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/falsifiable

But really, you are both correctly applying the term. You are applying popper's definition - "A statement, if false, can be proven as such."

Where as Ignoble is using the non-philosophical definition- "able to be proven false."

I think Popper...or wikipedia or whoever...lol... did say that testibility is a more accurate term than falsifiablity. A test can show something to be definitely false, but maybe not definitely true? I don't know.... I'm getting confused.

Then again maybe whoever wrote the wikipedia article is incorrect...and Popper never actually said "a falsifiable statement doesn't have to be false!"

I have read that wikipedia is sometimes completely inaccurate....and the review process is laughable... If only we can get our hands on Popper's actual writing.

YIKES! Time....for some apple juice...

The problem with the etymological versus the scientific definition is that while both of them apply in specific contexts, in the context of evolution, only the scientific definition is relevant. What matters when a theory is falsifiable is not that you can falsify it, but rather that you could, through testing, show it to be false if it is indeed false. This is independent of whether that thing is a fact or not.

Bill Gates is rich. That is a fact. And yet it's a falsifiable statement, because we have the ability to check whether it is, in fact, a fact. We can look at his bank accounts, we can look at his stock holdings and determine whether he is in fact rich. And because if he were not rich we would be able to show it, it is a falsifiable statement to say that he is rich.

 

[lejeunesage]

Religion typically is not testable or not falsifiable.

I will use the word testable now as it is more accurate.

Testable is not more accurate, although I don't have a problem with you using it. Testable means that there is a means to test it. So, all falsifiable statements are in fact testable. But falsifiable is more specific. It is not merely the ability to test a theory that matters in science, but the ability to prove if false if it is false. Testable implies that you could show it to be true or false. But since in science, unless one is using mathematical proofs, one can't ever show that anything is true, falsifiability becomes more important that pure testability.

 

[lejeunesage]

Exactly. However religious statements about science such as

are in fact testable, falsifiable, and already proven false. That was my only point. You guys are freaking paranoid in here, go get some fresh air! 😛

It's not about paranoia or semantics.

That statement has three propositions:

- God created humans.
- Humans were created.
- Humans have always been in their current form.

Only the third one is falsifiable, and in fact false.
We can't test for the first two propositions, whether it be the question of who created humans or the question of whether humans were created at all.

 

[lejeunesage]

It's not testable due to our lack of scientific ability to understand God.

It's not a lack of scientific ability to understand any god; it's rather that the question of whether deities of any kind exist is a philosophical rather than a scientific question. In order to be a question of science something must be falsifiable. In order to be falsifiable, it needs to be testable. In order for something to be testable it must have measurable physical manifestations. Since this does not apply to deities, they are not a subject of science.

 

[oaklandguy]

It's not about paranoia or semantics.

That statement has three propositions:

- God created humans.
- Humans were created.
- Humans have always been in their current form.

Only the third one is falsifiable, and in fact false.
We can't test for the first two propositions, whether it be the question of who created humans or the question of whether humans were created at all.

That's funny due to the amount of debating in the field of anthropology and what branch Homo sapien actually is derived from as well as noticing the actual difference between an Australopithecus and a Homo as well as underlying factors such as different features within races that could have resulted in smaller or larger skulls etc. Not to mention how many times the missing link has been faked in order to bring anthropological funding to a certain region (Britain that is a shot at you). If there is one thing I learned in anthropology, it's to take all of it with a grain of salt.

 

[lejeunesage]

That's funny due to the amount of debating in the field of anthropology and what branch Homo sapien actually is derived from as well as noticing the actual difference between an Australopithecus and a Homo as well as underlying factors such as different features within races that could have resulted in smaller or larger skulls etc. Not to mention how many times the missing link has been faked in order to bring anthropological funding to a certain region (Britain that is a shot at you). If there is one thing I learned in anthropology, it's to take all of it with a grain of salt.

If you want to believe that Homo sapiens has always existed in its current form, I won't argue with you. I find the evidence to the contrary satisfactory enough for my tastes.

 

[Regnvejr]

And why don't you put your money where your mouth is and prove that "statements that turn out to be true can be falsifiable" by falsifying this statement and this statement alone....

"This text is black."

This is stupid. If you can devise a test to find out WHETHER the statement is accurate or not, then it is falsifiable, REGARDLESS OF OUTCOME. Get a frigging grip here, you're supposed to have a clue about science. Damn, fools like you are irritating in their ignorance and lack of even the most basic, science skills.

All you have to do is set up a check to see if the statement of the text's color is the same as what the color actually is. When you can directly answer yes or no to that evaluation, then it is falsifiable.

That you don't even get that extremely BASIC aspect of science is very disturbing. How the heck will you ever be able to critically read a scientific text if you don't get this? This is like Jr. High level science methods here, after all.

 

[oaklandguy]

If you want to believe that Homo sapiens has always existed in its current form, I won't argue with you. I find the evidence to the contrary satisfactory enough for my tastes.

That is completely understandable and is the norm for people in our field of study. I just find humor in the debates between anthropologists, yet I cannot blame them because in some instances some of the skulls they are calling "human" look like skulls of gorillas or chimpanzees and vice versa. It's definitely and interesting area of study, but it would be radical to say we have complete understanding of the lineage of Homo sapien when that is definitely not the case. Just because we have a couple pieces to a puzzle doesn't mean we can force them all together just to pass a specific belief system agenda and I feel that sometimes people try to prove what they think is going on rather than what they are actually seeing. There are no statistical tests to eliminate human error in anthropology while in biology we can do these tests so that we don't always get the results we are looking for.

 

[Regnvejr]

It is interesting that when I ask you whether it is good or bad to call people *****ic, idiotic, dumb and liars you don't answer whether or not this is a good practice. You keep deflecting and asking me if their lying is ok (which I think is hard to prove, they may just be ignorant).

Oh, they're lying. And kicking them the heck out of medicine WILL be a favor the the patients who otherwise would have the future unfortunate experience of being their patients.

Well, no. Their ignorance or dishonesty is not OK. But still the way you treat them remains.

Yes, when they are lying and denying science, then harshly exposing to them how way off base they are, that might convince them to take another career instead and therefore not kill their future patients.

I find it a large stretch to say if a doctor believes in creation that he is harming his patients. But I guess if that is your opinion there is no changing it.

Quite] I have seen the problem often enough to be vigilant about it.

This...

I would ask you to remember that some of these pre-med people won't ever become doctors. So it isn't a certainty that you are protecting patients.

If they decide based on this, that their science is not up to par and go for some other field, then yes I have indeed protected the future patients.

I wish you would treat them better. Btw, here is what Jesus said on the cross when people had spit on him, beat him, mocked him, then put nails in his hands:

It seems that Christ gave them the benefit of the doubt even as they did evil. I don't see how calling people *****s and idiots is Christ-like.

But you do see how lying and deceiving is Christ-like? I call hypocrite on your statement.

And I do understand that you believe they are lying, but I'm talking about your actions.

Yes, I will do all in my power to prevent them from haring their future patients.

 

[Regnvejr]

agreed that Newtonian physics is an amazing example. True 100% of the time? No. So Newtonian physics is able to be proven false, and is false under certain circumstances.

Falsifiable is such a weak term in my view. I think testable is better. Because going around and saying Newtonian physics are falsifiable is true but not very useful, nor does it communicate anything of value.

I recoomend that, when you discuss science, you go with what the science actually is.

 

[searun]

So what do you guys think about:

1. Reincarnation. Where is Ghandi now? Where is Buddha now?

2. Barry Bonds and steroids. Is Hank Aaron better?

3. Resurrection from the dead. Yes or no?

4. Tiger Woods and family values. Do most successful guys cheat?

5. Fly fishing in Montana. Is Ted Williams still fly fishing? Why did they freeze his head?

6. Alabama football fans. What can you say about those guys?

 

[Regnvejr]

That's funny due to the amount of debating in the field of anthropology and what branch Homo sapien actually is derived from

But there is NO scientific disagreement that H. sapiens indeed is derived from some other species. That's an important distinction to make.

as well as noticing the actual difference between an Australopithecus and a Homo as well as underlying factors such as different features within races that could have resulted in smaller or larger skulls etc. Not to mention how many times the missing link has been faked in order to bring anthropological funding to a certain region (Britain that is a shot at you).

Missing link is a press fabrication and not a scientifically meaningful concept. But you know how creationists see it. If we find a transitionary form, then the creationist will say that there now are two gaps, on either side of the newly discoverd form, and as such, they will dishonesty go on forever. God-of-the-gaps.

 

[Regnvejr]

That is completely understandable and is the norm for people in our field of study. I just find humor in the debates between anthropologists, yet I cannot blame them because in some instances some of the skulls they are calling "human" look like skulls of gorillas or chimpanzees and vice versa.

Perhaps, this will help:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#timeline

 

[MegaSpectacular]

Oh, they're lying. And kicking them the heck out of medicine WILL be a favor the the patients who otherwise would have the future unfortunate experience of being their patients.
Yes, when they are lying and denying science, then harshly exposing to them how way off base they are, that might convince them to take another career instead and therefore not kill their future patients.
Quite] I have seen the problem often enough to be vigilant about it.
If they decide based on this, that their science is not up to par and go for some other field, then yes I have indeed protected the future patients.
But you do see how lying and deceiving is Christ-like? I call hypocrite on your statement.
Yes, I will do all in my power to prevent them from haring their future patients.

Regnvejr,

You are the best. You know it all. And you reign supreme.

You are protecting all the patients from these doctors, and stomping on all the liars and *****s. 👍 You are a modern day Jesus Christ.

Medicine is a safer place because of you.

This is stupid. Get a frigging grip here, you're supposed to have a clue about science. Damn, fools like you are irritating in their ignorance and lack of even the most basic, science skills. This is like Jr. High level science methods here, after all.

Don't be utterly stupid here.

You're full of crap with your sanctimonious holiness.

You continue to show your ignorance.

How dumb of you.

It's a bird, it's a plane, it's Regnvejr

 

[austinap]

On another note, Yale's open course on evolution:

http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology/principles-of-evolution-ecology-and-behavior/

 

[astral]

I love Regnevjr. Also, I love how the Psychiatry forums are a bunch of raging liberals but the SP forums are rock-ribbed, arrogant conservatives.

 

[Regnvejr]

Regnvejr,

You are ...

Your lack of concern for your future patients is duly noted. 15 years from now, when some quack physician hurts one of your patients because he/she ignores the scientific evidence, remember this tread.

 

[oaklandguy]

Your lack of concern for your future patients is duly noted. 15 years from now, when some quack physician hurts one of your patients because he/she ignores the scientific evidence, remember this tread.

Belief in creation has never hurt a patient. Are you ******ed? Find me one malpractice lawsuit where the doctor is sued based on his beliefs. Do you think physician mistakes are based on religious belief? If so you may have absolutely no knowledge of the field of medicine.

 

[Regnvejr]

Belief in creation has never hurt a patient. Are you ******ed? Find me one malpractice lawsuit where the doctor is sued based on his beliefs.

Are YOU ******ed? Now that we got that out of the way, physicians are sued on the basis of their beliefs rather than science all the time., When mistakes are made, it typically is when the treatment deviates from the best standard practices, eg.. ignoring science because the physician BELIEVES that he/she can ignore the evidence for what "feels right" to do. I do chart reviews for licensing boards in our region and quite a few times, the problem that caused patients to suffer is the physician ignoring science.

So yes you bet, physicians are sued for belief all the time.

Do you think physician mistakes are based on religious belief?

Back to your silly and ignorant outburst about "******ed," my reply is: "Are you illiterate or just so very dumb that you think that a criticism of anti-science creationism is also a criticism of religious beliefs?

If so you may have absolutely no knowledge of the field of medicine.

Per your very claim, you have either no comprehension of what has been said in this tread (making you a "drive-by troll") or you simply didn't figure out that people can be religious and Christian while not being creationists?


There. Can we now get back to more thoughtful posting?

 

[7starmantis]

"boop-boop-a-doo"

:troll:

I've asked him for sources on that claim many times. 🙄

This is all I ever get from him....
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQe-69c6eKE[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Jihad]

Belief in creation has never hurt a patient. Are you ******ed? Find me one malpractice lawsuit where the doctor is sued based on his beliefs. Do you think physician mistakes are based on religious belief? If so you may have absolutely no knowledge of the field of medicine.

Ya man, creationism really is not the same thing as religion. Go back and read this thread. We covered that already. No one here is talking about religion but you. Its the lack of science usage that concerns us. We're not talking bout lawsuits based on beliefs but his use of science in practice. (aka belief in creatonism shows science means nothing to you because creationism is false.)

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

:troll:

I've asked him for sources on that claim many times. 🙄

This is all I ever get from him....
[YOUTUBE]gQe-69c6eKE[/YOUTUBE]

Eh, he's just an angry dude. His points are valid (for the most part) but he has about as much tact as the asteroid from Armageddon.

 

[MegaSpectacular]

There. Can we now get back to more thoughtful posting?

Yes. Please lets get back to thoughtful posting. Please.

Are YOU ******ed?

Back to your silly and ignorant outburst about "******ed," my reply is: "Are you illiterate or just so very dumb that you think that a criticism of anti-science creationism is also a criticism of religious beliefs?

Your arguments are idiotic.

No, you are an idiot for trying to claim that personal Faith and science replaces each other

Your stupid assumption, not mine.

yes, you and your creationist friends lie a lot. That's very socially inept.

Don't be utterly stupid here.

You continue to show your ignorance.

How dumb of you.

"The challenge of leadership is to be strong, but not rude; be kind, but not weak; be bold, but not bully; be thoughtful, but not lazy; be humble, but not timid; be proud, but not arrogant; have humor, but without folly."

"Love is always patient and kind; it is never jealous, love is never boastful or conceited; it is never rude or selfish; it does not take offense, and is not resentful. Love takes no pleasure in other people's sins but delights in the truth; it is always ready to excuse, to trust, to hope, and to endure whatever comes. Love does not come to an end."

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

“Love is always patient and kind; it is never jealous, love is never boastful or conceited; it is never rude or selfish; it does not take offense, and is not resentful. Love takes no pleasure in other people’s sins but delights in the truth; it is always ready to excuse, to trust, to hope, and to endure whatever comes. Love does not come to an end.”

As lovely as that quote is, I've never found it to be quite true myself. A shame really.

 

[7starmantis]

Eh, he's just an angry dude. His points are valid (for the most part) but he has about as much tact as the asteroid from Armageddon.

Meh, he has some points, but they are based on his skewed perception of the world around him. I took a gander at his last 20, 25, 30, 50, 100 posts and it was telling how many times he called people liers, *****s, and hypocrites in nearly every post. Not everyone who disagrees with him is a lier, *****, or hypocrite. Just sayin.

 

[Regnvejr]

Yes. Please lets get back to thoughtful posting. Please.

Certainly. Which one of my posts were wrong, by the way?

 

[lejeunesage]

Certainly. Which one of my posts were wrong, by the way?

I wouldn't say that you've been wrong; in fact, I agree with the great majority of what you've stated. The only respect in which however much I would like to agree -it would be a validation of my personal beliefs and an indictment of the creationists- I cannot, is the assumption that a creationist would necessarily make a bad physician. Personally, I think creationism is the result of that unfortunate way in which religion, especially fundamentalism, often leads to a suspension of critical thinking, the rejection of empirical evidence in favor of millenia-old precepts, based on the belief that those disproved precepts are somehow divine in their origin. Personally, I am wholly satisfied with the answers that science gives about life and to the extreme left of pretty much anyone I know concerning the compatibility of evolution and deities: why would a creator choose to create species in such a way that it would make his very presence and existence unnecessary? That said, my personal beliefs aside, I don't think that any harm necessarily results from belief in creationism. The human brain is remarkably apt at compartmentalizing and I suspect that in the mind of the creationist physician, creation is deemed to be so outside the domain of science that any attempt study the origins of life is bound to yield faulty results. The creationist physician, by dismissing science in just this one area, is able to embrace the scientific method when it comes to the rest of what science studies. I suspect that there have been fewer and fewer creationist physicians since the inception of modern medicine, a reflection of the decreasing numbers of creationist in relation to the population as a whole. If this be true, creationist physicians in the 40s and 50s must have constituted and more significant portion of the physician body, and it would be too simplistic to dismiss them all as incompetent. If I had to guess, I would say that the same process that allows many intelligent people to dismiss global warming is at work here. People who take the science at face value use empirical data to support their conclusions, while those who oppose their conclusion find some reason to dismiss the science behind the data. It doesn't mean that they reject all of science, but in cases where the science is threatening to their sense of self, they reject it. Now, cases in medicine where a scientific concept can elicit such passions are rare. No one gets this worked up about bacteria or the causes of heart disease. No one has a cultural heritage at stake in the disagreements about which treatment is most effective. So I really don't see creationism being the cause of physicians' disregard for standard practice.

 

[DrArete]

 

[GoSpursGo]

Alright guys, it's been fun. I think this thread is officially ready to die now.