The blog post was aimed at normal people. It was trying to do the whole only-one-inferential-step-beyond-their-thoughts thing. I’m well aware that the big bang was simply what we call the transition of our region of the universe from an inflation phase into whatever it is in now.
Besides, the statement in the posting is still more accurate than the one that it was paired with, which was exactly my point.
What might have been a better phrasing that stayed away from words that would scare off laypeople?
Please note the two statements you paired together are not mutually exclusive, as “was created” is passive voice, allowing any particular creator, including giant sneezing space cows. And since we don’t know how the known universe “was created”, it’s an interesting (inappropriate?) choice for showing variable certainty in knowledge, even though you’re going for fallacy of gray. I’d suggest a simpler, less controversial metaphor to introduce the idea, then extend it to the desired topic.
I’d disagree that I was going for the fallacy of gray. The fallacy of gray is replacing a two coloured world (black & white) with a 1 coloured world (gray). The post you linked to goes on to say that it is quite appropriate to point out that there is such thing as ‘less white’ and ‘more white’ - in fact, a world with millions of shades. It’s a great antidote to two-colour thinking.
So you chose to say something only partly right, because the complete truth would scare ‘normal’ people? I question the effectiveness of this strategy when arguing for an objective standard of right-ness.
What might have been a better phrasing that stayed away from words that would scare off laypeople?
’The universe as we know it came into existence X years ago”. No need to say “was created” or bring in “what came before?” into the conversation at all, as it’s not the main subject, just an example.
Yes. I chose to say something only partly right. If I was talking to a creationist, I would suggest that maybe god could have used natural processes to create the world—because if I told them that there was no evidence for a god’s action on the universe, they’d assume that I was doing the devil’s work and not listen.
If I ended a conversation with my interlocutor’s beliefs now being one step closer to the truth, I would feel like I’d done a good job. I can always shift them again next time around.
I take your point about the alternative phrasing. I don’t think that that would have undermined my point, so I should have used it.
This is non-scientific when interpreted literally. You may wish to revise your phrasing.
The blog post was aimed at normal people. It was trying to do the whole only-one-inferential-step-beyond-their-thoughts thing. I’m well aware that the big bang was simply what we call the transition of our region of the universe from an inflation phase into whatever it is in now.
Besides, the statement in the posting is still more accurate than the one that it was paired with, which was exactly my point.
What might have been a better phrasing that stayed away from words that would scare off laypeople?
Please note the two statements you paired together are not mutually exclusive, as “was created” is passive voice, allowing any particular creator, including giant sneezing space cows. And since we don’t know how the known universe “was created”, it’s an interesting (inappropriate?) choice for showing variable certainty in knowledge, even though you’re going for fallacy of gray. I’d suggest a simpler, less controversial metaphor to introduce the idea, then extend it to the desired topic.
I’d disagree that I was going for the fallacy of gray. The fallacy of gray is replacing a two coloured world (black & white) with a 1 coloured world (gray). The post you linked to goes on to say that it is quite appropriate to point out that there is such thing as ‘less white’ and ‘more white’ - in fact, a world with millions of shades. It’s a great antidote to two-colour thinking.
I didn’t mean you were committing the fallacy, I meant you were similarly trying to point it out (“going for this kind of article and explanation”).
Ah. In that case, your comment makes a lot of sense. I apologise for the confusion.
So you chose to say something only partly right, because the complete truth would scare ‘normal’ people? I question the effectiveness of this strategy when arguing for an objective standard of right-ness.
’The universe as we know it came into existence X years ago”. No need to say “was created” or bring in “what came before?” into the conversation at all, as it’s not the main subject, just an example.
Yes. I chose to say something only partly right. If I was talking to a creationist, I would suggest that maybe god could have used natural processes to create the world—because if I told them that there was no evidence for a god’s action on the universe, they’d assume that I was doing the devil’s work and not listen.
If I ended a conversation with my interlocutor’s beliefs now being one step closer to the truth, I would feel like I’d done a good job. I can always shift them again next time around.
I take your point about the alternative phrasing. I don’t think that that would have undermined my point, so I should have used it.