Induction or deduction?

***QUOTE***

Anonymous said:

"Barker/Loftus also act as if the absence of evidence were positive evidence against the existence of something. But that’s a non-sequitur."

Hi Steve,

I think this comment confuses induction with deduction. Does it "necessarily" follow that simply because we have no experience with talking snakes that talking snakes must never have existed? Well no. But inductive arguments (and all arguments about historical fact are inductive arguments) are about probabilities, not necessities. He's saying it's probably not historical. That's reasonable. It is not a fallacy.

Take a claim from a different religion. Mormons say the Ephraimites came to South America around the time of Christ. A little earlier I believe. There is no archeological evidence for this. Is it a fallacy to point this out? Are you satisfied if the Mormon says in response "Non evidence is not evidence against anything. You've committed a non-sequitor." You wouldn't accept that response. Neither do we.

Anonymous said:

Hi slaveofone. I'm Jon by the way.

The issue is not whether or not there are additional evidences against the book of Mormon. And the issue is not the veracity of the Book of Mormon vs the veracity of the Bible. The comparison is between belief that snakes talked and the belief that the Ephraimites lived in South America. Also the issue is about confusion between induction and deduction.

Steve is confusing deduction and induction. Forget about the Bible and the Book of Mormon if need be. I don't want you to confuse what the issue is here. Take belief in leprechauns around the moon. We have no experience with them. So it is not a fallacy to say that this is good reason to doubt their existence. That's a fact.

Now, if that's true, then the same reasoning applies to talking snakes. We have no experience with them. Does this prove that it is impossible that they would exist? Of course not. But we're not doing deduction. We're doing induction. All we can say is that it is very unlikely that they exist. Now, if we had tons and tons of evidence that it really did happen, this might overturn our initial doubt. Barring that, it is irrational to believe it happened.

***END-QUOTE***

Hi Jon,

i) I thought slaveofone handily dispatched the Mormon comparison, so I’ll skip it. Anyway, you’ve dropped that part of your argument.

ii) Loftus is the one who brought “necessity” into the discussion by saying that “Such a story goes against what the principle of induction tells us can happen.”

What he really means, in relation to Gen 3, is that induction tells us what cannot happen.

But induction does nothing of the kind. It only tells us what has happened.

iii) I also disagree with his illicit attempt to convert nonevidence into “overwhelming evidence against the story told in Genesis 3, as well as other Biblical claims.”

He’s trying to turn a negative into positive evidence to the contrary.

iv) Now, the absence of evidence may be good reason to doubt an existential claim if reported event is the kind of thing we’d expect to leave trace evidence, or if it’s supposed to be a periodic phenomenon, like the life-cycle or the comet Halley.

v) Now, I’ve already shown that the identification of the serpent with a talking snake is not the only available interpretation, or even the best available interpretation.

vi) But let’s assume that it is. What’s the context of Gen 3? It moves within the framework of conditions that no longer obtain.

Indeed, that’s the point of the temptation. If the temptation succeeds, it will forever alter the status quo ante.

The fall is a unique, unrepeatable, and unparalleled event.

vii) In addition, all that Loftus ever does is to tacitly gloss the principle of induction naturalistically.

If you operate with a materialistic, closed-system viewpoint, then you’re going to find Gen 3 unbelievable. Christians understand that just as well as infidels.

Of course, Christians find a materialistic, closed-system viewpoint just as unbelievable.