"neither model can be said to be more real than the other"

[eyallev]

for thoes that don't understand the point, what hawking is saying is, that while we can't know what is TRUE/REAL (for all we know, maybe god poffed this world into existance a few min' ago) the real question is, what would be a better MODEL for it.

a good model for the world (or anything) needs to do three things (the first 2 are more importent):

-address the evidance we have found so far

-give usefull/testable predictions

-look nice.

[narco73]

From the same book: "According to model-dependent realism; it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation."

In other words ANY made up model cannot be said to be more real than the big bang model. Hawking is not stating anything here that supports young earth creationism.

[PlanetBongoSan]

its true that neither model can be said to be more real. Models are not real. Models are not reality, they describe reality. That's the point that hawking was making. that's the point that craig misrepresented. sisyphus redeemed was 100% right in saying that hawking had said nothing approaching what craig claimed he did, he just shouldn't have bothered with the amazon search to ineptly overstate a point he had already made perfectly well.

[WayOfTheBastard]

I should of asked you where to get the pirated version before I bought it lol.

[vbfl920]

It seems to be a popular trend among atheists to discredit Craig by any means available (Look at Theowarner and UrbanElf's video series.)

If you discredit a guy, or if you think he's constantly lying to you, chances are, you won't listen to his arguments.

[TheVodkaHaze]

To err is human, to forgive, divine. I don't know why we assume people purposely lie when they say something that is different than the actual interpretation. They could've made a huge mistake, or misspoke (I doubt the latter, since Craig would have corrected himself) but I feel that people will make videos saying that they are liars and deceptive. I'm guilty of it, I did this with Thunderf00t. But still, there are many interpretations of Craig's mistake, it seems rash to say he was dishonest.

[socrates856]

I'd have to read the book but how it sounds is that Hawking simply states the standard distinction between model and reality. No model is reality. That's how I understand this not knowing the whole quote.

[migkillertwo]

...with the realism/anti-realism debate in the philosophy of science. Only a naive science-geek would interpret Hawking's or Craig's words to mean that YEC and BBT are both equally valuable theories.

[balkan2k]

@migkillertwo Eh, what about the point where WLC explicitly states that Hawking essentially says the two models are equally valid??

Would that count as him saying that Hawking essentially says the two models are equally valid?

I think it would...

[migkillertwo]

@thebattle4everything

"His interp was intentionally misleading"

It wasn't intentional or misleading, his analysis was spot on. Hawking was comparing two models, the augustinian (young earth creationist) model of cosmogeny and the big bang theory and concluded that neither model is more real than the other.

"he was not saying that the models are equally valuable across the board"

and neither was craig. I encourage you to read his Philosophical Foundations, Craig is very familiar...

[legodesi]

good vid mig.

[garouHH]

To claim that no model can be more real than another model is correct, but of little regard to anyone but philosophers, because what actually matters to most scientists is how the models fare when their capability to explain the world is concerned, and in that regard, the relevant models here are anything but equal.

[RuinSonic]

Steven Hawking "Still Neither model can be said to be more real than the other."

It seems reasonable to interpret him as saying that models aren't reality. A model is no more real towards reality as another one. WLC gave his misleading interpretation:

"YEC and BBC are equally valid models of reality and it is meaningless to say which one describes the way the world really is..."

I mean come on isn't there some clear intent to deceive? We all know Hawkings doesn't believe that.

[migkillertwo]

@RuinSonic

Well if we are going to take it literally at face value then the statement is meaningless.

"We all know Hawking doesnt believe that"

Have you read chapter 3?

[RuinSonic]

@migkillertwo "Have you read chapter 3?"

From what I've heard of Hawking that doesn't seem consistent. Hawking seems to borderline crazy the way he talks. For instance in his previous writings he talks about God and the universe coming out of nothing yet I doubt he thinks nothingness could create something or believes God exists.

All I'm saying is it would be nice to see more quotes that are actually for sure written by Hawkings since it seems your implying he contradicts himself.

[RuinSonic]

@RuinSonic As long as Hawkings admits there is objective entities out there whether we know them or not he is a realist. He seems to be denying that models of reality are real. They are just are description and interpretation of the "whateverness" that is out there. If what he meant by equally valid is that one is simply preferred, then he wouldn't be claiming the BBT is actually correct and verified by the evidence. He may be contradicting himself at some level but this isn't anti-realisim.

[FatGermanBastard]

This claim is just like Plantinga's ontological argument. Confusing people on purpose. Makes you wonder why these guys have to resort to this type of argument.

[conradleviston]

"I'm sorry that this went over six minutes"

Hahaha. I wish I could keep mine under six minutes. By the time I've said everrything I feel I need to say I'm lucky to keep mine under eight. Nice video, factual, fair and reasonably thorough.

[tyrantslayer999]

Nice video Midkiller!

[tyrantslayer999]

Nice!

[askirojadu]

Charging people with dishonesty when you have no idea what they are talking about really really bothers me.

[Ephemerance]

Good video.

[planktime1]

Yeah I had the same suspicion that this was the place where Craig was eager to misunderstand Hawkings. However we shouldn't forget that Hawkings still didn't actually say what Craig said he did.

Craig remains dishonest.

[WayOfTheBastard]

Mig are you a scientific realist?

[migkillertwo]

@WayOfTheBastard

I really dont know. 

[Paxmax]

WLC is still bullshi**ing,"get this" the book DOES NOT "actually say" that.

WLC is making a hack of an interpretation.

Nice find though migkiller.

[migkillertwo]

@Paxmax

What do you think Craig is saying. Is craig saying that Hawking said they're on equal footing? no, not really, he only said that neither model is more real than the other. You should read Craig's "Philosophical Foundations", he is very familiar with the realism/anti-realism debate.

[Paxmax]

@migkillertwo I think this passage is what WLC shoved up his orifice and pulled it out for presentation:

The grand design, page 7:

"If two such physical theories or models accurately predicts the same events, one cannot be said to be more real than the other, rather, we are free to use whichever model is most convenient"

Note how WLC inserts BBC and Creationism as "models that accurately predicts the same events"

[migkillertwo]

@Paxmax

Actually I quoted the passage that Craig cited, which is on page 50 of The Grand Design. The passage clearly talks about young earth creationism. Craig inserted nothing. At best, Craig didn't quote the book word for word.

[Paxmax]

@migkillertwo I'd say at best WLC "just" quote mined(42 pages) the crap out of the book... and sprinkled on some sweet fruits to please his followers.

Isn't it weird the apologetic needs an apologetic to re-interpret what apologetic no.1 actually wanted to say? Wow, are we atheists really that dense?

[migkillertwo]

@Paxmax

Really? I encourage you to read the book, there's no quote-mining going on in his discussion on Hawking's Scientific realism, or better yet lack thereof.

[Paxmax]

@migkillertwo I will probably read it in it's entirety as soon as I get through "A brief history of time".

[Paxmax]

@migkillertwo Well, I think there is no point in us discussing it further.

We can probably not reach a consensus. The stretch of words meaning you allow WLC makes any- and everything possible, rendering the communication worthless.

I have a firm stance, the words WLC tied together does NOT depict what the book actually said. AT NO POINT did the book say that BBC is more convenient than YEC but both are equally valid.

[transferosome]

@Paxmax Ah, so WLC was conflating two passages. I agree that BBC is more 'useful' than young earth creationism. I would also agree that, say, the Copenhagen interpretation could be more 'convenient' in some circumstances than the many worlds interpretation.

I would not agree that convenience is the only discriminating factor between BBC and YEC. Which is what WLC is saying...

[Paxmax]

@transferosome I agree with that...

[migkillertwo]

@transferosome

I dont think that's what Craig said either. If it is, then Craig knows that "convenience" is much broader than popular connotations. "Convenience" also entails making testable predictions and conforming to certain values in science, like parsimony.

[infinit888]

@migkillertwo I want to know in which universe "so get this - they actually say at one point in the book.." means that they didn't 'actually' say it but according to my interpretation of a certain concept presented in the book if I assume that Hawkings thinks that BBC and YEC are equally useful at explaining the evidence that Hawkings thinks we cannot objectively assess which model is more real.

[MarcinP2]

Augustin was on the fence on the issue of literal reading of Genesis from what I know. He claimed both readings (allegorical/literal) are acceptable.

I think Hawkins meant the literal interpretation, because otherwise the quoted text would have no purpose.

[Momodomes]

Very good video, but I am interested in your actual opinion. Can we honestly claim any single fact in science is objectively true? Science does rely on fundemental assumptions to operate. Since no scientific theory can actually claim to be objectively true, what real advantage does an accepted theory have over any other in regards to what is objectively true?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Thanks for the response. Post it as a reply and I'll accept it.

As for the substance, I will grant you that the quote you gave make Craig look better than I made him out to look. That was likely the passage that Craig was thinking about, and I hadn't made that connection. But I still think my core point (that he was dishonest) holds.

[migkillertwo]

@SisyphusRedeemed

well we will see how your thesis survives, I mean this was kind of a big point in your video.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@migkillertwo I'll make an annotation in my video, mention your video and your basic point.

[zarkoff45]

@SisyphusRedeemed "I still think my core point (that he was dishonest) holds."

Either dishonest or ignorant. I don't think either Craig or migkiller are fully aware of what the phrase "the map is not the territory" means.

Why resort to a charge of dishonesty when ignorance will suffice?

[Theologica37]

Is it the case that Craig just made a mistake? Why assume and emotionally contend that he is being dishonest and is a bullshit artist?

What if I assume the error you made in your video was due to deception? Would you be comfortable with me making a video in which dozens of times I yell that you are a liar and that your work is complete bullshit? .. I suspect not. A much more charitable, more academic and less bigoted interpretation is that you made a mistake.

[migkillertwo]

@Theologica37 if you dont mind, I'm going to quote this comment in my next video. I'm going to upload a bit more thorough critique (though not exhaustive, some of Garret's points happened to be true)

[Theologica37]

Sure. Its just the principle of charity-- when there is an error in interpretation or logic its just plain ridiculous to all of sudden conclude that the person is a an evil, diabolical liar bent on destroying the whole intellectual world and wishes to self-anathematize himself from academia. Interestingly enough, the angry zealots who speak this way scarcely enjoy having their own mistakes depicted in the same light.

Also its' less than clear what Craig meant by saying "a sort of anti-realism".

[infinit888]

@Theologica37 because unlike most human beings Craig is trying to put forward the worst possible interpretation in which he implies that he thinks Hawkings believes that YEC and BBC explain the evidence equally.

That's already troubleling but how he presents this. Sitting on his high horse looking down on Hawkings while he pretends to be flabbergasted at the sheer idiocy of a man who happens to be a lot more accomplished then him in the field in question.

[Theologica37]

I heard Craig depict hawking as saying YEC and BBC are two models in which neither describe a real world and that BBC is more practical, useful etc. I do not recall Craig saying ability to 'explain evidence', though by all means: show me. Another thing, he was relying on Penrose for the 'anti-realism' complaints.

I think it's laughable to speak down to Hawking, but this doesn't mean he's infallible; similarly its' not wise for you or SR to speak down (in his case with great bigotry) on Craig.

[infinit888]

@Theologica37 Bigotry? Because we don't believe that Craig is actually that stupid?

"there is no objective fact of the matter whether the YECist is right or the BBCist is right (apparently they actually say that in the book which of course they don't). YEC and BBC are equally valid models of reality and it's meaningless to say which one describes the way the world really is... all we can say is that the BBC is the more convenient model"

[Theologica37]

This of course begins the semantics, but nowhere in this is said that Hawking asserts that YEC and BBC explain the evidence equally. Describing the evidence and describing the world are totally different things. Craig is right to say that Hawking is differentiating between the reality of the fact and the utility of framework by which we have knowledge. Hawking really is doing that. That's a different claim though, then saying that the evidence for both is equal.

[infinit888]

@Theologica37 And Hawking has made it very clear when the 'convenience directive' should be applied and that is if two physical theories or models accurately predict the same events (account for the evidence at hand).

But Hawking never states that YEC and BBC accurately predict the same events. That they both can account for all the evidence. Craig totally just made that up in order to scoff at him.

It's pretty hard to believe that Craig ascribed that to Hawking by 'accident'.

[Theologica37]

I see nowhere where Craig said anything about accurate predictions/evidences. These are totally subjects than discussing whether there is '[really]' (the term used) a world apart from models. This is clearly the discussion Craig is having (perhaps too simplistically). Hawking's possible skepticism there being no real model @3:58.

So, it is clearly foolish to cry "liar!"; Craig may be making an exegetical error, but it is desperate and deranged to believe that hes purposefully being dishonest.

[RuinSonic]

@Theologica37 I don't know enough to call WLC an outright liar, but you have to admit it was deceiving or dishonest research into this book. For instance just because you believe someone is an anti-realist doesn't mean you get to ignore the fact that they explicitly say they aren't. As far as Migkillertwo's quote It's hard to really hard to justify such an elaborated interpretation of a small quote when all other indications including realizing fall flat against that.

[migkillertwo]

@RuinSonic

Odoesn't mean you get to ignore the fact that they explicitly say they aren't"

Oh come on Ruinsonic! Read chapter 3 of his book, it is CLEARLY an anti-realist screed. Hawking just thinks that he gets to attach "realist" to the name and can get around the debate.

I mean, Hawking EXPLICITLY REJECTS traditional scientific realism.

[RuinSonic]

@migkillertwo "Hawking just thinks that he gets to attach "realist" to the name and can get around the debate."

Shouldn't that be addressed? I didn't watch the whole video so I can't say, but if someone calls themself an atheist but you think they are a theist you should at least address your opinion vs. what they think of themselves.

"I mean, Hawking EXPLICITLY REJECTS traditional scientific realism. "

It's also not clear what parts are Hawkings since he didn't write most of it.

[legodesi]

@Theologica37

I missed you.

[adrenacrumb]

@Theologica37 How do you make that mistake, you don't even have to look at the book to know that claim is untrue.