Only 99.99%

From a Christian blog, on a discussion that has ended up arguing against evolution, we get this amazing comment (Emphasis mine):

I find it a bit humorous that only 99.99% of evolutionary biologists believe in evolution. What do you do with the other .01%?

It seriously cannot get any more inane than this. I guess the part that is really humorous is lost on him.

So what do you all think? What should we do with the rather impressive 0.01% of evolutionary biologists that do not believe in evolution?

5 thoughts on “Only 99.99%

  1. If 0% = 0 and 100% = 1 and 0 = no and 1 = yes, is 150% more than yes? Or is it maybe yesser than yes?

    But we don’t have a “yes or no” issue here ๐Ÿ™‚

    If you consider scientists as described in the first place and I do as described in the second and we switch to absolute numbers, then going over 100% with a non-congruent definition is not a problem.

    But we’re then guilty of performing a fallacious error, similar to equivocating. We must be speaking about the same thing in order to reach any conclusion.

  2. “But we donโ€™t have a โ€œyes or noโ€ issue here”

    Does this matter? In my question we do. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    “But weโ€™re then guilty of performing a fallacious error, similar to equivocating. We must be speaking about the same thing in order to reach any conclusion.”

    Is a conclusion the only thing what this all can be about? Never thought about that questions are more interesting than answers could be? When we always just stick to a pattern of rules and regulations this life will bore us to death one day.. :] This has never been only about results. Or has it?

  3. Aaargh! You’re always taking the road that is trying to give me headaches you bastard!

    Does this matter? In my question we do.

    The problem with defining as 1 as yes and 0 as no is that we now have a binary system. In a binary system we do not have a middle ground. What is 0.5? “Maybe”? And 0.8 is “possibly”?
    Other than a nice game with words, it doesn’t have any other meaning.

    Is a conclusion the only thing what this all can be about? Never thought about that questions are more interesting than answers could be? When we always just stick to a pattern of rules and regulations this life will bore us to death one day.. :] This has never been only about results. Or has it?

    Well, it depends on what we’re trying to achieve. There is not specific problem in having plays of words and games like that but I’d rather be playing an actual game if it comes down to that ๐Ÿ™‚
    How about some Munchkin? ๐Ÿ˜›

  4. I would say 0.50.5 is unlikely. 0.5 itself is the problem. The goal of this is not to give you headache, mate. Its the jumping between systems that you wouldn’t call causal. But has everything to be causal just to be useful, interesting and worth a look? I doubt it. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Some munchkin does not sound bad. When and where? ๐Ÿ™‚

    It does depend on what we are trying to achieve and for me the path is more interesting than the result. Life will finally result in death and I am not going to reduce my life to death. ๐Ÿ˜›

  5. That is really midnumbing idea. On that principle, does the commenter assume that only 99.99% of rocket scientists believe in rockets?

Comments are closed.