Noah's Ark

[PassedOut]

Many people still think that the main-stream media has a "liberal bias."

What's the evolution-level evidence that contradicts this position?

Wall Street Journal, Salt Lake Tribune, Houston Chronicle, NY Post, Washington Times, Denver Post, Chicago Sun-Times, Kansas City Star, Southwest News-Herald, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Tuscaloosa News, Lexington Herald-Leader, Idaho Statesman, Las Vegas Sun, Akron Beacon-Journal, Daytona Beach News-Journal, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Rockford Register, Nashua Telegraph, Concord Monitor, Columbia Daily Tribune, Eugene Register-Guard, Arlington Daily Herald, Burlington Free Press, Mid-Columbia Tri-City Herald, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.

[jdonn]

a. josh believes the universe wasn't designed for a purpose

b. there is insufficient evidence for josh to hold this belief

therefore all josh's beliefs are suspect

 

is that pretty much what you're saying?

Yes. It is not proof that all my other beliefs are wrong, it is simply evidence that points in that direction and that should be considered.

 

Of course that example was hypothetical since, even ignoring that your statement b. is wrong, see what I say below.

 

Many people still think that the main-stream media has a "liberal bias."

What's the evolution-level evidence that contradicts this position?

That's a silly thing to say. What's the evolution-level evidence that shows it? (Also for lukewarm's hypothetical example above.) The burden of proof is on showing that something is true, not false, else remember my invisible floating pink elephant theory...

[blackshoe]

So all those parents who, over the millenia, tried to teach their children to do the right thing were wasting their time?

 

Should the Golden Rule really read "Do unto others before they do unto you"?

I don't see how you can reach that conclusion.

 

I don't know much about development psychology, but intuitively I would think that having been taught the moral norms generally accepted in the society one grows up in, increases the chance of happiness. I am sure there are examples of professions in which it is better not to be constrained by ethics, but I think those would be exceptions. ("Vice president under G.W." may or may not be such an example, I dunno).

I didn't reach a conclusion, I asked a couple of questions, in an effort to discover to what conclusion I should come. Or perhaps, to what conclusion one should be led by Winston's comment that "There is difference between what is right and what is real." :)

[fred]

I served as an acolyte

Your religous history is not so unusual, but I am amazed by the tranformation you have gone through as a bridge bidder :)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[helene_t]

I served as an acolyte

Your religous history is not so unusual, but I am amazed by the tranformation you have gone through as a bridge bidder :)

There is hope for everyone :)

[Lobowolf]

The burden of proof is on showing that something is true, not false, else remember my invisible floating pink elephant theory...

It's all in the framing of the question.

 

I wasn't making the claim that the mainstream media has a liberal bias; I was imposing the burden of proof on Passed for asserting that it's "unchallenged foolishness" to believe that it does.

 

The "biased media" question is inherently subjective enough to be subject to all manner of interpretation, of course. It's a perfect question to illustrate the "hooray for my side" notion of "accepting evidence to the contrary" of one's position. There are all sorts of studies out there that demonstrate exactly what the people conducting them want to demonstrate. Whatever the appropriate criteria are, you'd probably have to formulate them before the fact. Which candiates get the most press? Which candidate gets more photographs? Which candidate gets photographed smiling more often? What's the party affiliation of most of the writers? WHat's the party affiliation of most of the editors? Is the newsroom happy or unhappy when certain candidates win? Which candidate gets the most endorsements? Which positions get the most endorsements? Even then, to what extent is that "media bias" vs. marketing a product to its target audience. Orange County (CA) newspaper readers are different demographically than Los Angeles County readers; is it "bias" to cater to that?

 

I think there are some useful ways to consider the question, and I think that different criteria will provide some useful evidence. For example, if Candidate A beats Candidate B by 1% of the popular vote, but Candidate A received 3 times as many newspaper endorsements (or endorsements in newspapers with 3 times the circulation) as Candidate B, I think that's suggestive of bias. If Candidate A appears twice as often, or appears more in "positive" stories than negatives ones, I think that's suggestive of bias, also. Or if photos of Candidate A always show him smiling, and photos of Candidate B always show him frowning.

 

I also think, though, that it's really difficult to even conceive of it as an issue that's subject to conclusive proof.

[jdonn]

The burden of proof is on showing that something is true, not false, else remember my invisible floating pink elephant theory...

It's all in the framing of the question.

 

I wasn't making the claim that the mainstream media has a liberal bias; I was imposing the burden of proof on Passed for asserting that it's "unchallenged foolishness" to believe that it does.

He seems to have provided a fair amount of evidence. Whether it constitutes proof is up to the individual, I guess.

[PassedOut]

I also think, though, that it's really difficult to even conceive of it as an issue that's subject to conclusive proof.

I agree with this statement and much of the rest of your post. However, the claim of liberal bias in the mainstream media has been trumpeted over and over by propagandists so much that it has been accepted as a proved fact by many.

 

Responding to your request, I gave more than two dozen mainstream media counter-examples that do not demonstate a liberal bias (to say the least). And in my experience, rural and small-town newspapers and radio shows tilt strongly conservative.

 

But really now, only a small percentage of reporting by the mainstream (and other) media is amenable to being classified as political at all. Much of it is designed simply to attract potential customers to advertisements, and much is sheer crap, no matter the political leanings of the producers.

 

The mainstream media exercises considerable self-censorship to avoid alienating advertisers and the government. Sometimes writers and reporters are barred by management from publishing or airing a story that will offend a revenue source. Well known examples include 60 Minutes yanking the Brown & Williamson story and PBS yanking a Noam Chomsky interview (so close to airtime that it was replaced with a long musical interlude). In general, the corporate managers of mainstream media outlets control what is disseminated (and naturally so), and the writers and reporters must perform within corporate guidelines regardless of their personal views.

 

The New York Times shilled shamelessly for the Bush administration in the runup to the Iraq war.

 

Finally, objectivity often has an inherent bias. Suppose one candidate smiles a lot more than his or her opponent. Does it really show bias when photos reflect that?

 

And suppose someone being interviewed puts forward an absurd proposition (liberal or conservative)? Does it show bias if the interviewer responds honestly?

 

I'm not a particular fan of Lou Dobbs, but I remember an interview he had once with a corrupt old Texas politician, Tom Delay. Tom said that the way to reduce the mounting Bush deficits was to cut taxes again. Lou asked innocently, "How much would we have to cut taxes to eliminate the deficit entirely?"

 

My point was and is that letting people get away with foolish unchallenged assertions creates serious problems for the community.

[jdonn]

By the way, anyone see the most recent Family Guy, where Lois became a reporter for Fox News? It was really funny, one of the better recent episodes.

[luke warm]

a. josh believes the universe wasn't designed for a purpose

b. there is insufficient evidence for josh to hold this belief

therefore all josh's beliefs are suspect

 

is that pretty much what you're saying?

Yes. It is not proof that all my other beliefs are wrong, it is simply evidence that points in that direction and that should be considered.

 

Of course that example was hypothetical since, even ignoring that your statement b. is wrong, see what I say below.

no, the syllogism states that since you're wrong in one belief you can be wrong in all beliefs... this is an example of faulty or hasty generalization (among other things), and is fallacious... btw, how is premise 'b' wrong?

The burden of proof is on showing that something is true, not false, else remember my invisible floating pink elephant theory...

not necessarily, it depends on the question... for example, you and i could hold a debate on "do invisible floating pink elephants exist" and we would both rightly have to present arguments for whichever side we took

[TimG]

It's too bad that unchallenged foolishness gains acceptance so easily, but I'm done with ignoring it.

Maybe Mikeh can make a post on the first of every month stating his position in opposition to Luke_Warm's and anyone who wants to can add a "me, too, wtp" post.

[Lobowolf]

It's too bad that unchallenged foolishness gains acceptance so easily, but I'm done with ignoring it.

Maybe Mikeh can make a post on the first of every month stating his position in opposition to Luke_Warm's and anyone who wants to can add a "me, too, wtp" post.

Don't forget to invite the LOLs.

[mikeh]

It's too bad that unchallenged foolishness gains acceptance so easily, but I'm done with ignoring it.

Maybe Mikeh can make a post on the first of every month stating his position in opposition to Luke_Warm's and anyone who wants to can add a "me, too, wtp" post.

Nope: I'm not playing anymore :P

 

However, and as a constructive exercise for those possessed of critical faculties, anyone interested is more than welcome to try to think of what my response would be. In the unlikely event that anyone takes me up on that, please don't post it... as I wrote earlier, my new-found position is that I will not respond to Lukewarm's non-bridge posts.

 

Edit: I am abashed at the idea that I seem to be perceived as being akin to Lukewarm in the tenor of my posts... abashed and mortified. So that should help me to keep my promise to myself. And I apologize to those who have formed the opinion that I am as close-minded as I see Lukewarm as being.

[Winstonm]

no, the syllogism states that since you're wrong in one belief you can be wrong in all beliefs... this is an example of faulty or hasty generalization (among other things), and is fallacious...

 

I don't think you framed the original idea correctly.

 

A. Lukewarm holds a certain belief.

B. The facts do not not support that belief.

C. It would be wise to check whether or not the facts support his other beliefs

 

I think this more corretly defines the position.

[Winstonm]

I'm curious if any of you would be willing to change (or at least reconsider) your position

 

This is truly an odd question and I think gets to the heart of the misunderstanding. For most of us here, we don't have a "dog in this fight", i.e., we do not carry an emotional stake on the outcome. How can you ask those whose minds are swayed by evidence if evidence would sway their minds?

 

Can it be so hard to grasp that we simply weigh the preponderance of the evidence in order to shape our concept of reality, and thus are always willing to alter that concept when and if the evidence changes?

 

That's what took me from a believer to a non-believer - the preponderance of the evidence. If the evidence changes, I will change my mind. What will you do, sir?

[jdonn]

a. josh believes the universe wasn't designed for a purpose

b. there is insufficient evidence for josh to hold this belief

therefore all josh's beliefs are suspect

 

is that pretty much what you're saying?

Yes. It is not proof that all my other beliefs are wrong, it is simply evidence that points in that direction and that should be considered.

 

Of course that example was hypothetical since, even ignoring that your statement b. is wrong, see what I say below.

no, the syllogism states that since you're wrong in one belief you can be wrong in all beliefs... this is an example of faulty or hasty generalization (among other things), and is fallacious...

"Suspect" and "wrong" are not synonyms, so perhaps you didn't say what you meant to say. If you had used the word "wrong" in your example I would not have agreed, nor is that what I (or I believe anyone else) is claiming about you.

 

To be clear, the claim isn't that your belief based on insufficient evidence makes you necessarily wrong about other things. It's that your belief makes it more likely than it would otherwise have been that you are wrong about other things. And that is not a fallacious line of reasoning.

 

I mean it's hard to dispute. With which of the following claims do you disagree?

- A person who bases a conclusion on insufficient evidence in some given situation is more likely to do the same in any other randomly chosen situation than a person who did not base a conclusion on insufficient evidence in the given situation.

- A person who is more likely than another to base a conclusion in a randomly chosen situation on insufficient evidence is also more likely than the other to be wrong in his conclusion in that situation.

 

I think it would take some real combination of creativity and pig-headedness to disagree with either statement.

 

btw, how is premise 'b' wrong?

Sorry new policy, $50 fee for answering stupid questions. I'll give you my paypal if you want.

 

The burden of proof is on showing that something is true, not false, else remember my invisible floating pink elephant theory...

not necessarily, it depends on the question... for example, you and i could hold a debate on "do invisible floating pink elephants exist" and we would both rightly have to present arguments for whichever side we took

Do you know what the expression "you can't have your cake and eat it too" means? Why is the burden on me to prove there is insufficient evidence that the universe was designed for a purpose, but on both of us to prove there are/aren't invisible elephants floating over our heads right now?

[luke warm]

I don't think you framed the original idea correctly.

 

A. Lukewarm holds a certain belief.

B. The facts do not not support that belief.

C. It would be wise to check whether or not the facts support his other beliefs

 

I think this more corretly defines the position.

jimmy believes the universe shows signs of being intelligently designed for a purpose

there is insufficient evidence to support this belief

so it would be wise to check his other beliefs

 

that's about right, right? i've said in other places that we all have our own presuppositions and it's likely that we can all appeal to authorities of our choosing... in this case though, even some pretty famous scientists agree that the first premise is true... whether it is or not might not be known, but just dismissing their thoughts and words out of disagreement seems arbitrary... you can easily find scientists, some even notable, who think as i do... btw, if i was arguing against you here i'd say that your 2nd premise needs some proof or at least some argumentation

With which of the following claims do you disagree?

- A person who bases a conclusion on insufficient evidence in some given situation is more likely to do the same in any other randomly chosen situation than a person who did not base a conclusion on insufficient evidence in the given situation.

- A person who is more likely than another to base a conclusion in a randomly chosen situation on insufficient evidence is also more likely than the other to be wrong in his conclusion in that situation.

 

I think it would take some real combination of creativity and pig-headedness to disagree with either statement.

i agree with both... do you?

Do you know what the expression "you can't have your cake and eat it too" means? Why is the burden on me to prove there is insufficient evidence that the universe was designed for a purpose, but on both of us to prove there are/aren't invisible elephants floating over our heads right now?

it isn't and i never meant to imply otherwise... there are two sides to almost every question and both sides are held to certain standards

[TimG]

I don't think you framed the original idea correctly.

 

A. Lukewarm holds a certain belief.

B. The facts do not not support that belief.

C. It would be wise to check whether or not the facts support his other beliefs

 

I think this more correctly defines the position.

jimmy believes the universe shows signs of being intelligently designed for a purpose

there is insufficient evidence to support this belief

so it would be wise to check his other beliefs

I think that many of us believe:

 

B ) A preponderance of the evidence refutes Jimmy's belief (intelligent design).

 

And:

 

C) If, based upon all the evidence, Jimmy can come to the wrong conclusion in this matter, he is likely to come to the wrong conclusion in other matters.

 

For me, C) is especially true when "other matters" involve religion. I likely would not question your bridge opinions based upon your "error" when it comes to intelligent design.

[bid_em_up]

Maybe someone like bid-em-up might be persuaded by our postings, and I would be happy to continue to try to explain to him the fundamental difference between evidence-based understandings and dogma-based beliefs, until and unless it becomes apparent that he has a firmly closed mind on the subject.

Mike, I ask that you show me anywhere where I have stated my opinion on any of these subjects (the Ark, global warming, evolution).

 

I am amazed that as a lawyer, you are willing to make such assumptions. One day, it will bite you in the ass.

 

All I did is ask a question as to whether or not, if given irrefutable evidence that something such as the Ark existed, would you be willing to reexamine your position? Because, it was not clear (to me) whether you (and others) are the same type of person that you accuse Jimmy of being or not. Someone who is blinded by their beliefs (opinions), no matter what the evidence may say or are you someone who is willing to look objectively at the facts, and then form or change your position. It's easy to say that you will. Actually doing so when confronted with such evidence is more difficult because it affects your core being.

 

So I was asking if, in fact, you actually *would be* willing to change your position when confronted with evidence otherwise, or are you just blowing smoke out of your ass when you say that.

 

And that was all I wanted to know.

 

(For the record, I believe in God, and Jesus Christ. Whether or not the Ark actually existed, I do not know, when they find that Big Boat I asked you about, then I will know with certainty. I believe that evolution occurs, and that global warming is a scientific fact. I do not believe that everything in the Bible (I assume this is the dogma you refer to) is to be taken as the "Absolute Truth", however, I also believe that there is enough basis in history for there to be some element of "Truth" in it as well. It's just a question of whose version of history you are reading.)

[mikeh]

 

I am amazed that as a lawyer, you are willing to make such assumptions. One day, it will bite you in the ass.

 

All I did is ask a question as to whether or not, if given irrefutable evidence that something such as the Ark existed, would you be willing to reexamine your position?  Because, it was not clear (to me) whether you (and others) are the same type of people that you accuse Jimmy of being or not.  Someone who is blinded by their beliefs (opinions), no matter what the evidence may say or are you someone who is willing to look objectively at the facts, and then form or change your position.   It's easy to say that you will. Actually doing so when confronted with such evidence is more difficult because it affects your core being.

 

So I was asking if, in fact, you actually *would be* willing to change your position when confronted with evidence otherwise, or are you just blowing smoke out of your ass when you say that.

 

And that was all I wanted to know.

 

(For the record, I believe in God, and Jesus Christ.  Whether or not the Ark actually existed, I do not know, when they find that Big Boat I asked you about, then I will know with certainty.  I believe that evolution occurs, and that global warming is a scientific fact.  I do not believe that everything in the Bible (I assume this is the dogma you refer to) is to be taken as the "Absolute Truth", however, I also believe that there is enough basis in history for there to be some element of "Truth" in it as well.  It's just a question of whose version of history you are reading.)

Finding the remains of a big boat with lots of animal droppings would hardly amount to irrefutable proof of the literal truth of Noah's Ark :) Unless, of course, your belief structure predisposed you to uncritical acceptance of it as such.

 

I understand that there is compelling evidence that in relatively recent pre-history, massive flooding occurred over a wide area of what we now refer to as the Middle East... and as Richard has suggested, there is some reason to suspect that this was associated with whatever led to the breakthrough of the Mediterrean into the Black Sea... inundating many sqaure kilometres of what was presumably populated low-lying areas.

 

It would not be surprising, to me at least, that such a breakthrough was triggered by an unusually rainy period.

 

It would not be beyond the realm of possibility that some person or people, possessed of what was by those standards a relatively large boat, would have rescued some livestock, which was then the foundation for a new herd or herds after the immediate effects of the flood receded.

 

It would then make sense, given the nature of oral history and the then-current propensity to attribute anything not readily understood to the will of a god or gods, to conjure up a legend or myth.

 

To me, this sequence of events would be infinitely more plausible than the literal truth of God speaking to Noah. One scenario affords a complete explanation without invoking the supernatural.. it requires only a basaic understanding of human societies, while the other requires an enormous and unwarranted assumption about something literally unprovable.

 

One is evidence based. One depends on dogma.

 

You appear to believe in the biblical Noah's Ark. Therefore you believe in dogma rather than evidence. QED.

 

Now, if you don't believe in the myth of Noah's Ark... if your immediate reaction to the discovery of the remains of an appropriately-dated large boat containing various samples of animal feces (edit) would be similar to mine... then I take it all back, in terms of seeing you as a dogmatist... and I apologize for my mistaken assumption. I trust you can see how I came to make the assumption, based on the way in which you framed your question... the idea that finding such a relic would be 'irrefutable evidence' makes me laugh.

 

As for not-so-subtly accusing me of 'blowing smoke out of [my] ass, all I can say is that my views on many, many matters have indeed changed over the years, in response to new information. Of course, that is easy for me to claim, and, since you know nothing of me other than what you glean from my postings, easy for you to reject... especially since seeing me as a zealot of similar inclinations (altho polar opposites in p.o.v.) as Jimmy no doubt gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling B)

[luke warm]

I don't think you framed the original idea correctly.

 

A. Lukewarm holds a certain belief.

B. The facts do not not support that belief.

C. It would be wise to check whether or not the facts support his other beliefs

 

I think this more correctly defines the position.

jimmy believes the universe shows signs of being intelligently designed for a purpose

there is insufficient evidence to support this belief

so it would be wise to check his other beliefs

I think that many of us believe:

 

B ) A preponderance of the evidence refutes Jimmy's belief (intelligent design).

 

And:

 

C) If, based upon all the evidence, Jimmy can come to the wrong conclusion in this matter, he is likely to come to the wrong conclusion in other matters.

 

For me, C) is especially true when "other matters" involve religion. I likely would not question your bridge opinions based upon your "error" when it comes to intelligent design.

that's fine, although i'd ask if you'd say the same about anyone who believed that the universe shows signs of being intelligently designed

[jdonn]

I don't think you framed the original idea correctly.

 

A. Lukewarm holds a certain belief.

B. The facts do not not support that belief.

C. It would be wise to check whether or not the facts support his other beliefs

 

I think this more correctly defines the position.

jimmy believes the universe shows signs of being intelligently designed for a purpose

there is insufficient evidence to support this belief

so it would be wise to check his other beliefs

I think that many of us believe:

 

B ) A preponderance of the evidence refutes Jimmy's belief (intelligent design).

 

And:

 

C) If, based upon all the evidence, Jimmy can come to the wrong conclusion in this matter, he is likely to come to the wrong conclusion in other matters.

 

For me, C) is especially true when "other matters" involve religion. I likely would not question your bridge opinions based upon your "error" when it comes to intelligent design.

that's fine, although i'd ask if you'd say the same about anyone who believed that the universe shows signs of being intelligently designed

You are at it again. "Shows signs" is an awful guideline. Doesn't the universe show signs of having been colored in by a giant sharpie, since it's black and sharpies color in black? That doesn't mean any intelliigent person believes it is true though.

 

A better guideline would be something more like "the preponderance of evidence supports".

[TimG]

I don't think you framed the original idea correctly.

 

A. Lukewarm holds a certain belief.

B. The facts do not not support that belief.

C. It would be wise to check whether or not the facts support his other beliefs

 

I think this more correctly defines the position.

jimmy believes the universe shows signs of being intelligently designed for a purpose

there is insufficient evidence to support this belief

so it would be wise to check his other beliefs

I think that many of us believe:

 

B ) A preponderance of the evidence refutes Jimmy's belief (intelligent design).

 

And:

 

C) If, based upon all the evidence, Jimmy can come to the wrong conclusion in this matter, he is likely to come to the wrong conclusion in other matters.

 

For me, C) is especially true when "other matters" involve religion. I likely would not question your bridge opinions based upon your "error" when it comes to intelligent design.

That's fine, although I'd ask if you'd say the same about anyone who believed that the universe shows signs of being intelligently designed.

I think I would say the same about anyone who claimed that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the universe was intelligently designed.

 

I will readily admit that there are many signs that could easily (perhaps reasonably or understandably) be misread as indicating an intelligently designed universe. But, seeing these signs is far different from coming to a studied conclusion that the universe was intelligently designed.

[luke warm]

A better guideline would be something more like "the preponderance of evidence supports".

better for whom? besides, i think the preponderence of evidence supports the premise that the universe was intelligently designed, especially if one takes the big bang as the beginning... you obviously disagree, but i don't know what "preponderence" of evidence you're speaking of, even if evolution is held to be true

 

granted that beliefs aren't evidence, but i'm sure you've heard the many quotes from some notable scientists concerning this

 

"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say “supernatural”) plan." Arno Penzias

 

"Amazing fine-tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word “miraculous” without taking a stand as to the ontological status of that word." George Ellis and Roger Penrose

 

"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as an act of a God who intended to create beings like us." Stephen Hawking (in fairness, he stated this attempting to show that the BB has problems, which he tries to alleviate via string and other theories)

 

"One would have to conclude that either the features of the universe invoked in support of the Anthropic Principle are only coincidence or that the universe was indeed tailor made for life. I will leave it to the theologians to ascertain the identity of the tailor." Bernard Carr

 

"When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." Tony Rothman

 

"Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline to the theological or design argument." Edward Harrison (i'm not sure who he is, but he's obviously a crank)

 

"If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn’t much use." Robert Griffiths

 

"[There] is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all…It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe…The impression of design is overwhelming." Paul Davies

 

as you know, there are many many more such quotes... now i know that most of those people are atheists (or at most agnostic) and this isn't meant to show that they've changed their minds, merely that they don't see the same prepoderence of evidence disputing universal design as you do... i also know that some, if not all, hold views that don't necessarily incorporate design

[mike777]

"Curious whether any of the poster's here are willing to admit that they believe the story about Noah and the ark..."

 

 

I think some posters have forgotten the story and theme of Noah and the Ark.

 

The theme is why did God bother to save anyone.

This theme is repeated in numerous holy books in many faiths.

 

If you do not believe an Involved God exists then of course you do not believe the story as truth or parable.