o thannk you so much i was struggling with the 30 (or so) fallacies for a mid term paper. you explained them sooo well, im sure ill do well on it. thanks again, now you should do one on the eight pillars of greek wisdom!
"Wipe out one of those principles, wipe out one of those laws...no life."
Wow, you're a freaking genius. We DO have those principles and we DO have those laws, and there IS life. You have proven nothing except that, as ExtantDodo wonderfully phrased it, if things were different then they'd be different.
BTW, the stupid, smug smirk on his face as he says "no life" made me LOL, as if he just made some mind-blowing observation which completely destroys naturalism.
The anthropic principle is a reaction to the statement that if things were different, many things as we know them would not be. This is an argument mainly made from the "what are the chances of things being exactly the way they are" pov. The anthropic principle states that we can only observe a universe if the universe allows for us to live in it. Try seeing it in context of a multiverse reality. It is a valid argumentation, though it doesn't add much scientifically :(
There are actually two (possibly more) anthropic principles.
The strong one is the basis for the design arguments - if it were different we wouldn't be here therefore it was designed for us, which is actually a non sequitur.
The weak one is simply the logical response or reaction to that - so what, if it were different we wouldn't be here to say that, maybe nobody would, or maybe some other life form.
The weak one isn't mean to add anything scientifically, it's just a response,
the "strong one" isn't a principle, it's stupidity (as you said, it's a non sequitur). It's just the stupid misinterpretation of the principle by some creationists who want to defend their argumentations with just about anything that sounds remotely possible to people who know nothing about the subject. But for the sake of science, let's not associate principles, laws and theories with their misinterpretations xD.
There are several anthropic "principles" with different strengths. The only one that actually works is the simple logical response to the one creationists use. None of them are scientific principles although creationists try to use the strong one that way,
This has been done to death in the Usenet newsgroups.
Wait, so they use the evidence from the Big Bang to show that the universe had a beginning, but they reject the Big Bang? Talk about wanting to have it both ways!
5:32
Kent's graphs and where he selectively decided to mark them is abit infuriating.
Paur 1 year ago
o thannk you so much i was struggling with the 30 (or so) fallacies for a mid term paper. you explained them sooo well, im sure ill do well on it. thanks again, now you should do one on the eight pillars of greek wisdom!
kpohanka 2 years ago
"Wipe out one of those principles, wipe out one of those laws...no life."
Wow, you're a freaking genius. We DO have those principles and we DO have those laws, and there IS life. You have proven nothing except that, as ExtantDodo wonderfully phrased it, if things were different then they'd be different.
BTW, the stupid, smug smirk on his face as he says "no life" made me LOL, as if he just made some mind-blowing observation which completely destroys naturalism.
tekbarrier 2 years ago
The anthropic principle carries the presumption that the universe was created for us, instead of our being an emergent property of it.
AI've never heard "if it were any different it would be different" expressed so succinctly.
Well done.
And Kalam like all first cause arguments uses logical fallacy to try and generate information where there is none.
Even ignoring for the moment that causeless events are known to science.
GWR3440 2 years ago 3
I don't think it does...
The anthropic principle is a reaction to the statement that if things were different, many things as we know them would not be. This is an argument mainly made from the "what are the chances of things being exactly the way they are" pov. The anthropic principle states that we can only observe a universe if the universe allows for us to live in it. Try seeing it in context of a multiverse reality. It is a valid argumentation, though it doesn't add much scientifically :(
TakesTwoToTango 2 years ago
There are actually two (possibly more) anthropic principles.
The strong one is the basis for the design arguments - if it were different we wouldn't be here therefore it was designed for us, which is actually a non sequitur.
The weak one is simply the logical response or reaction to that - so what, if it were different we wouldn't be here to say that, maybe nobody would, or maybe some other life form.
The weak one isn't mean to add anything scientifically, it's just a response,
GWR3440 2 years ago
thx but...
the "strong one" isn't a principle, it's stupidity (as you said, it's a non sequitur). It's just the stupid misinterpretation of the principle by some creationists who want to defend their argumentations with just about anything that sounds remotely possible to people who know nothing about the subject. But for the sake of science, let's not associate principles, laws and theories with their misinterpretations xD.
TakesTwoToTango 2 years ago
Nobody is doing that apart from creationists.
There are several anthropic "principles" with different strengths. The only one that actually works is the simple logical response to the one creationists use. None of them are scientific principles although creationists try to use the strong one that way,
This has been done to death in the Usenet newsgroups.
GWR3440 2 years ago
Wait, so they use the evidence from the Big Bang to show that the universe had a beginning, but they reject the Big Bang? Talk about wanting to have it both ways!
califoniania 2 years ago
Thanks! Great vid!
lowconceptreviews 3 years ago 2
this is amazing.
hearrtxjeany 3 years ago 2
Hey - it would be cool if you added a 25-point checklist (just the topics) of all of the fallacies in the right column.
lassieronen 3 years ago 4
Thanks for the suggestion!
ExtantD0d0 3 years ago
Nice job dodo! Critical thinking is a faculty sorely lacking in society. Philosophy should be given more emphasis in schools.
vicepresidentfru1tly 3 years ago 3
great video!
yourBALDneighbor 3 years ago 2