tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post384391241420798888..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Complex Patterns Have Been Discovered in the Cell MembraneUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44843552300429124912012-06-08T11:23:43.587-07:002012-06-08T11:23:43.587-07:00Scott: "Our best theories say that the world ...Scott: "Our best theories say that the world changes over time and so that the future will not resemble the past, except by virtue of obeying the same laws of nature. We try to work out those laws by conjecture and criticism.<br /><br />Of course, feel free to enlighten us as to how you've managed to formulate such a principle. Please be specific."<br /><br />You do realize that the quote above is not mine, and that it's the same guy you linked to who is trying to refute inductive reasoning right? I mean, I can understand you might get confused because he is talking about working out the laws of nature. But that is his confusion not mine.<br /><br />Scott: "You've claimed that objecting to induction is a rejection of logical and reason. You failed to acknowledge any criticism of induction and justificationism."<br /><br />I acknowledged that it is based on the use of inductive reasoning.<br /><br />Scott: "You've posed questions that imply answering them would require the use of induction, as a sort of trap."<br /><br />Oh you noticed that? So was I being unfair? How? Why should you be able to use inductive reasoning to convince me that conclusions arrived at via inductive reasoning are unsound?<br /><br />Scott: "Your arguments are parochial in that they completely ignore other forms of epistemologically."<br /><br />Seriously dude? Are you trying to become incoherent now to prove that you aren't using inductive reasoning?<br /><br />Scott: "You haven't disclosed or argued for the particular epistemologically you do hold."<br /><br />Ohohohooooh, Ok mister I know all about your conceptions of knowledge. So, you got tired of not being able to mind read, then tired of not being able to twist my words, and now you finally want me to tell you what I really think?<br /><br />Scott: "My conjectured explanation for these observations is that you cannot recognize your pre-enlightenment, authoritative conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism."<br /><br />So because I "posed questions that imply answering them would require the use of induction, as a sort of trap", this somehow indicates that I cannot recognize my conception of human knowledge is an idea that could be subject to criticism? Wow, I guess if you reject inductive reasoning, you can take away whatever self congratulatory theories you like from any type of conversation whatsoever! You fell into a trap, therefore it means I can't realize I might be wrong about what knowledge is. GOT IT!<br /><br />Scott: "The observations above collaborate this theory."<br /><br />I don't think that word means what you think it means. Also, it's unclear how you were able to make conjectures of any kind without using inductive reasoning.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90202184913040554482012-06-08T11:21:44.675-07:002012-06-08T11:21:44.675-07:00Scott:"So, again, unless there is something I...Scott:"So, again, unless there is something I was mistaken about in the above, it's still unclear why "That's just what God must have wanted" isn't the best explanation for absolutely everything and anything."<br /><br />As an ultimate explanation, I think it is. But this does not mean that no proximate cause is possible if you would call that "better".<br /><br />Scott: "Any assumption that [any part of the] world is inexplicable leads to bad explanations."<br /><br />We say the explanation of why things look designed is that they were. That is a good explanation. You are conflating that with "why this particular design exists in the mind of God over another" which if it existed eternally in the mind of God (something you get from theology, not ID) is inexplicable because there was no "before" to cause what came "after" outside of space-time". This is like me objecting to your conjecture-refutation model because you can't explain what came before the big bang. It is another step down the rabbit hole, but your explanation for apparent design fails before that, while mine does not.<br /><br />Scott: "First, the question is, why isn't "That's just what God must have wanted" the best explanation for everything and everything."<br /><br />Why post this below what I said? I already answered that matter twice and have now a third time above in different words. This does nothing to explain why "Evolution does not have this benefit."<br /><br />Scott: "I'd insert a quip about the comprehension level of a 12 year old here, but that's more your style, not mine."<br /><br />Yes, it is not immoral to be ignorant. However you subjected yourself to this understanding and felt slighted because you know I know the other likely alternative is that you are being dishonest. There is still a third possibility that you just keep amazingly misunderstanding by chance. But after 30-40 coin flips, we start to suspect something else.<br /><br />Scott: "In other words, what's inside this bubble would only appear to explicable if one carefully avoids asking specific questions."<br /><br />Scott: "If there are no questions you must avoid answering to avoid the entire world from becoming inexplicable then this should be a problem."<br /><br />So if I avoid questions, I can remain in ignorance in my bubble, but if I do not avoid questions, I can't avoid the world becoming inexplicable? Is that like saying, because you can't explain the ultimate cause of everything, you shouldn't accept the proximate cause of anything? Do you apply this reasoning to evolution and the big bang?<br /><br />Scott: "Second, an explanation has been provided. Again, you're conflating the absence or presence of underlying explanation with your incredulity of said explanation."<br /><br />To explain something is to make it plain or clear. Evolutionists themselves say it is not plain or clear how any of these proteins were created. Thorton himself just finished complaining that it was the silly CREATIONISTS who wanted the details. So you can't say you've made it clear on one hand and then complain because you claim it is impossible to be clear on the other. If it's clear to you, please EXPLAIN, if not, don't call your theory an explanation.<br /><br />Scott: "As of yet, no one has managed to formulate a "principle of induction" that is works in practice."<br /><br />Seems to work fine for me. But how would you know if they did? "In practice" would mean repeating the method, so why would you reject the principle of induction by using the principle of induction?<br /><br />Scott:"So, it's unclear how someone could employ induction to conclude anything."<br /><br />What method did you use to determine the meaning of the words in the above sentence?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52281297716713486132012-06-08T11:18:18.965-07:002012-06-08T11:18:18.965-07:00Scott: "As I mentioned before, you hold a pre...Scott: "As I mentioned before, you hold a pre-enlightemnt, authoritative, justiifcationist conception of human knowledge. Nor do I need to be a mind reader to know this."<br /><br />"enlightemnt", "justiifcationist" Dude slow down and besides not destroying your replies, your ideas might become more coherent as well.<br /><br />Scott: "It's authoritative in that you think God is the authoritative source of what is right and wrong."<br /><br />If by authoritative you mean he authored everything, then I guess morality is not possible unless things exist. I do supposed that righteousness affects our ability to not suppress the truth, which would affect what we were talking about. I don't really see the connection you're making with how we assess whether we know something.<br /><br />Scott: "It shares the above feature with the vast majority of all conceptions of human knowledge formed before the enlightenment."<br /><br />I'm now supposed to believe that you have apprehended what were the conceptions of human knowledge held by the vast majority of people before the "enlightenment"? You don't think that beggars belief?<br /><br />Scott:"It represents justificationism because, as William Bartley put it, "Most justificationists do not know that they are justificationists."<br /><br />So because I don't know I'm a justificationist, therefore I am one? I suppose if I knew I was a justificationist, I would also be one. It appears there is nothing left for me then but to be a justificationist. You sir, are a hoot!<br /><br />Scott: "Justificationism is what Popper called a "subjectivist" view of truth, in which the question of whether some statement is true, is confused with the question of whether it can be justified (established, proven, verified, warranted, made well-founded, made reliable, grounded, supported, legitimated, based on evidence) in some way."<br /><br />I'm quite sure there are true things that can't be proven. Glad we cleared that up.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53641690261532628312012-06-07T14:36:22.386-07:002012-06-07T14:36:22.386-07:00Scott: "So, no. I haven't epistemological...Scott: "So, no. I haven't epistemologically undercut myself. It only appears that way because you cannot recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism."<br /><br />John: What non inductive reasoning did you use to arrive at this conclusion?<br /><br />You've claimed that objecting to induction is a rejection of logical and reason. You failed to acknowledge any criticism of induction and justificationism. You've posed questions that imply answering them would require the use of induction, as a sort of trap. Your arguments are parochial in that they completely ignore other forms of epistemologically. You haven't disclosed or argued for the particular epistemologically you do hold. <br /><br />To quote you… <br /><br /><i>The last two big conversations we had ended up with you claiming you objected to inductive reasoning <b>which is what is enabling you to read and understand this now.</b> I don't feel like going back to point it out to you because I'm tired of talking to you <b>because there is no point.</b></i><br /><br />My <b>conjectured explanation</b> for these observations is that you cannot recognize your pre-enlightenment, authoritative conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism. The observations above collaborate this theory. That is, these are the sort of actions I'd would expect you to take should the explanation be true, in reality, based on background knowledge. As such, I've tentatively accepted this explanation until new observations suggest otherwise. <br /><br />Of course, you could provide a better expiation for these observations.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49969800912977161732012-06-07T14:34:46.789-07:002012-06-07T14:34:46.789-07:00Scott: "Of course, I could be putting words i...Scott: "Of course, I could be putting words in your mouth, in that you do not think "God did it" actually is a good explanation? Or perhaps you do not think "God did it" should be preferred because is less complex that evolutionary theory? <br /><br />John: Because, as I said, it has the benefit of explaining the apparent design we see inside life. Evolution does not have this benefit.<br /><br />First, the question is, why isn't "That's just what God must have wanted" the best explanation for everything and everything. I'd insert a quip about the comprehension level of a 12 year old here, but that's more your style, not mine. <br /><br />If there are no questions you must avoid answering to avoid the entire world from becoming inexplicable then this should be a problem. <br /><br />Second, an explanation has been provided. Again, you're conflating the absence or presence of underlying explanation with your incredulity of said explanation.<br /><br />Scott: "That's the misconception, John. When a Popperian says the use of induction in science is a myth, they mean that people cannot recognize when they (or others) are not actually using induction to reach conclusions."<br />John: If you can recognize it better than the people telling you they are doing otherwise, then please provide the method. Just remember not to use any inductive reasoning (or mind reading) while doing so.<br />As of yet, no one has managed to formulate a "principle of induction" that is works in practice. So, it's unclear how someone could employ induction to conclude anything. <br /><br />A few examples from the summary <a href="http://www.criticalrationalism.net/2010/03/03/six-varieties-of-inductivism/" rel="nofollow">here</a>… <br /><br />We do not get theories from evidence. <br /><br /><i>...Evidence doesn’t imply that any particular theory is right. So whenever a person claims to have got a theory from evidence what he actually did was come up with a conjecture that explained the evidence.</i><br /><br />Nor does evidence confirm universal theories.. <br /><br /><i>… Confirmation is sometimes said to be some sort of objective confirmation, i.e. – the theory is more likely to be true in some objective sense. That is, if we guess some theory is true in the light of evidence we are less likely to get it wrong. This is obviously nonsense. The theory is either right or wrong. That’s all there is to it.</i><br /><br />Nor can we work out from evidence that the future will resemble the past. <br /><br /><i> Our best theories say that the world changes over time and so that the future will not resemble the past, except by virtue of obeying the same laws of nature. We try to work out those laws by conjecture and criticism.</i><br /><br />Of course, feel free to enlighten us as to how you've managed to formulate such a principle. Please be specific.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42063367626868703542012-06-07T14:33:24.153-07:002012-06-07T14:33:24.153-07:00Scott: "Why isn't "that's just w...Scott: "Why isn't "that's just what God must have wanted" the best explanation for the motions of objects? After all, God could decide to directly move objects in just the way we observe for some explicable reason, right? So, why do we even need to bother with secondary causes, which would supposedly be more complex?"<br /><br />John: You can rephrase the question, but I already answered it here;<br /><br />John: "You don't, but the hypothesis is not necessary in this case because we can replicate the effects with natural forces that we don't normally consider "God". The same is not true for what we see in proteins and cells. They appear to be products of intention and the type of things that natural forces deteriorate, not create."<br /><br />Apparently, you're still having difficulty with the argument I'm making. <br /><br />Again, I'm taking your own argument seriously. Specially…<br /><br />Scott: <i>"Again, a being that "just was" complete with the knowledge of how to build adaptations, already present, doesn't serve any explanatory purpose."</i><br /> <br />john: <i>How do you explain the creation of something that claims it always existed? If it is true, then what answer would you like instead of the truth?</i><br /><br />God, from some realm where he has inexplicably always existed, reached into our sphere of explicably and, for some inexplicable reason, designed organisms in precisely the particular forms we observe, using some inexplicable means and method, using knowledge of an inexplicable origin. <br /><br />In other words, no better explanation for the biosphere can be had than "That's just what God must have wanted" because God is inexplicable. <br /><br />However, any combination of natural forces would supposedly be more complex then "That's just what God must have wanted". After all, God is supposedly non-material, so he couldn't have a complex nervous system. Nor do we need the complication of explaining how God obtained the knowledge of how to do anything. This is because he supposedly "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to build the biosphere, already present, right? Not to mention that God supposedly has the ability to make objects move *as if* space was warped by mass, should he choose to for some inexplicable reason. <br /><br />So, again, unless there is something I was mistaken about in the above, it's still unclear why "That's just what God must have wanted" isn't the best explanation for absolutely everything and anything. <br /><br />Again, this is what I meant when I wrote… <br /><br /><i>Any assumption that [any part of the] world is inexplicable leads to bad explanations. That is, no theory about what exists beyond this bubble can be any better than "Zeus rules" there. And, given the dependency above, this also means there can be no better expiation that "Zeus rules" inside this bubble as well. </i><br /><br />Which you completely ignored, yet again.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77236975829262291582012-06-07T12:09:09.351-07:002012-06-07T12:09:09.351-07:00John: You can't seem to wrap your head around ...John: You can't seem to wrap your head around the comments I make that most 12 year olds could understand, but now you know what my conceptions of human knowledge are? Oh please continue mind reader!<br /><br />As I mentioned before, you hold a pre-enlightemnt, authoritative, justiifcationist conception of human knowledge. Nor do I need to be a mind reader to know this. For example.. <br /><br />It's authoritative in that you think God is the authoritative source of what is right and wrong. To what ever degree you think the Bible is authoritative it's because that aspect represents God's word, etc. <br /><br />It shares the above feature with the vast majority of all conceptions of human knowledge formed before the enlightenment. <br /><br />It represents justificationism because, as William Bartley put it, "Most justificationists do not know that they are justificationists. Justificationism is what Popper called a "subjectivist" view of truth, in which the question of whether some statement is true, is confused with the question of whether it can be justified (established, proven, verified, warranted, made well-founded, made reliable, grounded, supported, legitimated, based on evidence) in some way."<br /><br />Of course, if I'm confused about anything above, please point out where <b>and provide a detailed correction as to what you do think</b>. <br /><br />Is that clear enough?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51991221951403287182012-06-07T11:58:57.385-07:002012-06-07T11:58:57.385-07:00Scott: "Why isn't "that's just w...Scott: "Why isn't "that's just what God must have wanted" the best explanation for the motions of objects? After all, God could decide to directly move objects in just the way we observe for some explicable reason, right? So, why do we even need to bother with secondary causes, which would supposedly be more complex?"<br /><br />You can rephrase the question, but I already answered it here;<br /><br />John: "You don't, but the hypothesis is not necessary in this case because we can replicate the effects with natural forces that we don't normally consider "God". The same is not true for what we see in proteins and cells. They appear to be products of intention and the type of things that natural forces deteriorate, not create."<br /><br />Scott:"Of course, I could be putting words in your mouth, in that you do not think "God did it" actually is a good explanation? Or perhaps you do not think "God did it" should be preferred because is less complex that evolutionary theory? <br /><br />But, if this is the case, then why is "God did it" the best explanation in the case of the biosphere, or anything else?"<br /><br />Because, as I said, it has the benefit of explaining the apparent design we see inside life. Evolution does not have this benefit.<br /><br />Scott: "That's the misconception, John. When a Popperian says the use of induction in science is a myth, they mean that people cannot recognize when they (or others) are not actually using induction to reach conclusions."<br /><br />If you can recognize it better than the people telling you they are doing otherwise, then please provide the method. Just remember not to use any inductive reasoning (or mind reading) while doing so.<br /><br />Scott: "So, when I say an argument is inductive, I mean that someone is actually working from some explanatory framework which they haven't disclosed or do not recognize as an explanatory framework in the first place."<br /><br />You're free to tell what it REALLY is any time you wish since you know it isn't inductive reasoning.<br /><br />Scott: "So, no. I haven't epistemologically undercut myself. It only appears that way because you cannot recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism."<br /><br />What non inductive reasoning did you use to arrive at this conclusion?<br /><br />Scott: "After all, you previously claimed rejecting inductivism would be rejecting logic and reasoning itself, right?"<br /><br />But maybe now I think some random new thing! Are you depending on inductive reasoning to form a theory of what I think based on what I thought in the past?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37124862499209907442012-06-07T11:51:13.748-07:002012-06-07T11:51:13.748-07:00Scott: "John, I'm not reading your mind.&...Scott: "John, I'm not reading your mind."<br /><br />Scott: "Rather, I think that non-Popperians merely thought they used induction to build them."<br /><br />So please tell me how you could know the minds of these men when the only evidence you have is contrary to your theory and is itself achieved through the use of inductive reasoning. This is why I called you a mind reader.<br /><br />Scott: "I'm taking your own argument seriously for the purpose of criticism."<br /><br />No, you're not. You constantly make up your own straw men styled so they can be rebutted by this book you read.<br /><br />Scott: "However, If you think I'd have to be a "mind reader" to know what your position is, are you conceding to having dogged my questions designed to clarify your position?"<br /><br />Nope, see above.<br /><br />Scott: "Furthermore, when I point out that you're operating under a misconception, not only do I point out where the misconception is, but I correct you, in detail, multiple times"<br /><br />only after you're 10 miles down your own made up rabbit trail that has nothing to do with what anyone said.<br /><br />Scott:"Yet, you keep making the same mistake, over and over again. Not to mention that you explicitly state that you skip over parts of my comment, etc. What other conclusion do you expect me to reach other than you wan't to remain ignorant?"<br /><br />I do want to remain ignorant of the responses to your own straw man arguments.<br /><br />Scott: "Also, given that you refuse to see criticism of inductivism and justificationism as anything but "rejection of logic and reason", what other conclusion do you expect me to reach other that you cannot recognize that your conception of human knowledge is an idea that would be subject to criticism?"<br /><br />I don't expect you to reach any conclusions at all without using inductive reasoning, a fact you always avoid.<br /><br />Scott: "Again, if I've got it wrong, then why don't you provide a detailed correction. Here's a hint, saying a 12 year old could have understood "compartmentalizing a designer" isn't a detailed correction."<br /><br />It's a good enough hint to an honest person. I will lead you to water but I won't make you drink.<br /><br />Scott: "I'm attempting to take your own argument seriously. Is this such a novel concept for you that you've confused it with mind reading?"<br /><br />No Scott, you aren't doing anything remotely close to that. Nothing in the comment you referenced had anything to do with the comprehensibility of proximate causes and it was irrelevant. Now you want to transfer the mind reading over to this issue for some reason? Amazing. This is the perfect example of you pretending to be confused.<br /><br />Scott: "Again, if you think that "God did it" it's the best explanation not only because it represents a good explanation, but a simpler explanation that evolutionary theory, then why isn't "God did it" the best explanation for everything?"<br /><br />It could be, but not all causes we find significant are ultimate ones.<br /><br />Scott: "What sort of questions must you avoid?"<br /><br />None.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76114942586644732032012-06-07T10:35:15.395-07:002012-06-07T10:35:15.395-07:00Scott: "If you want to remain ignorant then, ...Scott: "If you want to remain ignorant then, yes. After all, this is the second time I've pointed out this is a common misconception of Popperians and skipping it seemed to work well for you then."<br /><br />John: I'm afraid you've epistemologically undercut yourself sir. You seem to be using a lot of inductive reasoning to develop that idea.<br /><br />That's the misconception, John. When a Popperian says the use of induction in science is a myth, they mean that people cannot recognize when they (or others) are not actually using induction to reach conclusions. <br /><br />So, when I say an argument is inductive, I mean that someone is actually working from some explanatory framework which they haven't disclosed or do not recognize as an explanatory framework in the first place. <br /><br />So, no. I haven't epistemologically undercut myself. It only appears that way because you cannot recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism. After all, you previously claimed rejecting inductivism would be rejecting logic and reasoning itself, right?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15199846120425009362012-06-07T10:35:01.582-07:002012-06-07T10:35:01.582-07:00Scott:"Are you saying that proximate causes a...Scott:"Are you saying that proximate causes are supposedly comprehensible?"<br /><br />John: Some may be, some may not be. Why should they all be one way or the other? And what on earth did I say that you twisted into that? Dude, you are way off the deep end with your comments.<br /><br />I'm attempting to take your own argument seriously. Is this such a novel concept for you that you've confused it with mind reading?<br /><br />Again, if you think that "God did it" it's the best explanation not only because it represents a good explanation, but a simpler explanation that evolutionary theory, then why isn't "God did it" the best explanation for everything? <br /><br />To quote from my earlier comment… <br /><br /><i>if we do exist in a finite bubble of explicably, which exists in a universe of inexplicability, the inside cannot be explicable either. This is because the inside is supposedly dependent what occurs in this inexplicable realm. <br /><br />Any assumption that [any part of the] world is inexplicable leads to bad explanations. That is, no theory about what exists beyond this bubble can be any better than "Zeus rules" there. And, given the dependency above, this also means there can be no better expiation that "Zeus rules" inside this bubble as well. <br /><br />In other words, what's inside this bubble would only appear to explicable if one carefully avoids asking specific questions. Otherwise, you'd follow your own claims to the conclusion that "That's just what God must have wanted" was the best explanation for everything, rendering everything just as inexplicable as everything else.</i><br /><br />What sort of questions must you avoid? <br /><br />Why isn't "that's just what God must have wanted" the best explanation for the motions of objects? After all, God could decide to directly move objects in just the way we observe for some explicable reason, right? So, why do we even need to bother with secondary causes, which would supposedly be more complex? <br /><br />Of course, I could be putting words in your mouth, in that you do not think "God did it" actually is a good explanation? Or perhaps you do not think "God did it" should be preferred because is less complex that evolutionary theory? <br /><br />But, if this is the case, then why is "God did it" the best explanation in the case of the biosphere, or anything else?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38530966827515166222012-06-07T10:34:21.658-07:002012-06-07T10:34:21.658-07:00John, I'm not reading your mind. I'm takin...John, I'm not reading your mind. I'm taking your own argument seriously for the purpose of criticism. <br /><br />However, If you think I'd have to be a "mind reader" to know what your position is, are you conceding to having dogged my questions designed to clarify your position?<br /><br />Furthermore, when I point out that you're operating under a misconception, not only do I point out where the misconception is, but I correct you, in detail, multiple times. Yet, you keep making the same mistake, over and over again. Not to mention that you explicitly state that you skip over parts of my comment, etc. What other conclusion do you expect me to reach other than you wan't to remain ignorant? <br /><br />Also, given that you refuse to see criticism of inductivism and justificationism as anything but "rejection of logic and reason", what other conclusion do you expect me to reach other that you cannot recognize that your conception of human knowledge is an idea that would be subject to criticism? <br /><br />Again, if I've got it wrong, then why don't you provide a detailed correction. Here's a hint, saying a 12 year old could have understood "compartmentalizing a designer" isn't a detailed correction.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48971943948961985072012-06-06T22:24:08.441-07:002012-06-06T22:24:08.441-07:00Scott: "Of course there is "no point&quo...Scott: "Of course there is "no point". Just as there there is "no point" to responding to the summary criticism of inductivism I linked to. This is yet another indication that you do not recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism."<br /><br />You can't seem to wrap your head around the comments I make that most 12 year olds could understand, but now you know what my conceptions of human knowledge are? Oh please continue mind reader!<br /><br />Scott:"So, it's not that I reject reason or logic, but think conclusions in these areas were reached by some other means that induction."<br /><br />Yes, that seems to be very compatible with your habit of making up things and claiming other people said or thought it.<br /><br />Scott: "So, when I ask you to point out exactly where I'm confused, and even give you a staring point by which to begin, you still dodge the question?"<br /><br />I already told you where you were confused twice.<br /><br />Scott: "Again, it's still unclear how this is different than what I wrote in the referenced comment."<br /><br />I think your antecedent is missing.<br /><br />Scott:"Are you saying that proximate causes are supposedly comprehensible?"<br /><br />Some may be, some may not be. Why should they all be one way or the other? And what on earth did I say that you twisted into that? Dude, you are way off the deep end with your comments.<br /><br />Scott:"But, again, God wouldn't need to use a proximate cause."<br /><br />Whether or not that happened is irrelevant to the fact that you are complaining about only having an ultimate cause and not a proximate one. You yourself hold to an ultimate cause without the proximate analog but in your case, you can not appeal to intention or power for that matter (in terms of probabilistic resources).<br /><br />Scott: "For example, it's possible that God could have decided to directly pull on objects in just the right way to make it appear *as if* general relatively is true. As such, both theories would accept the same empirical observations, despite suggesting very different things occurring in reality. How do you know God isn't actually doing just this? How do you know he will not change his mind tomorrow for some inexplicable reason?"<br /><br />You don't, but the hypothesis is not necessary in this case because we can replicate the effects with natural forces that we don't normally consider "God". The same is not true for what we see in proteins and cells. They appear to be products of intention and the type of things that natural forces deteriorate, not create.<br /><br />Scott: "If you want to remain ignorant then, yes. After all, this is the second time I've pointed out this is a common misconception of Popperians and skipping it seemed to work well for you then."<br /><br />I'm afraid you've epistemologically undercut yourself sir. You seem to be using a lot of inductive reasoning to develop that idea. And now you've lapsed into the belief that you can read people's minds better than they themselves can when you can barely read English. Sorry I don't have time to hear you argue against inductive reasoning with inductive reasoning.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78727787829736651282012-06-06T14:20:58.406-07:002012-06-06T14:20:58.406-07:00Scott: Also, kindly point out where I completely r...Scott: Also, kindly point out where I completely reject reason and logic when I supposedly "loose". Please be specific<br /><br />John: The last two big conversations we had ended up with you claiming you objected to inductive reasoning which is what is enabling you to read and understand this now. I don't feel like going back to point it out to you because I'm tired of talking to you because there is no point.<br /><br />Of course there is "no point". Just as there there is "no point" to responding to the summary criticism of inductivism I linked to. This is yet another indication that you do not recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism. <br /><br />And, again, the claim that I "completely reject reason and logic" represents a common misconception of Popperians. Specifically, It's not that I object to the use of induction. It's that no one has ever managed to formulate a ‘principle of induction’ that is usable in practice for obtaining scientific theories from experiences. As such, it's unclear how they could have used it. <br /><br />So, it's not that I reject reason or logic, but think conclusions in these areas were reached by some other means that induction. To quote from an earlier comment…<br /><br /><i>For example, just because I think the use of induction is a myth, this doesn't mean that I think bridges are hazards that need to be redesigned unless those that designed them were Popperians. Rather, I think that non-Popperians merely thought they used induction to build them.</i><br /><br />Scott: "How am I confusing the two?"<br /><br />Scott: Are you saying the designer having done it this particular way, despite supposedly having the knowledge and ability to do otherwise, *is* explicable while the means by which the designer did it is not? If so, then what it that explanation? <b>Please be specific.,</b><br /><br />John: I don't know. I think it's quite simple for most people to compartmentalize a creator from the process by which he creates. <br /><br />So, when I ask you to point out exactly where I'm confused, and even give you a staring point by which to begin, you still dodge the question?<br /><br />Again, it's still unclear how this is different than what I wrote in the referenced comment. <br /><br />John: But the last time I asked you the difference between proximate and ultimate causes, you did not respond. Perhaps now would be a good time to work through that.<br /><br />Are you saying that proximate causes are supposedly comprehensible? But, again, God wouldn't need to use a proximate cause. For example, it's possible that God could have decided to directly pull on objects in just the right way to make it appear *as if* general relatively is true. As such, both theories would accept the same empirical observations, despite suggesting very different things occurring in reality. How do you know God isn't actually doing just this? How do you know he will not change his mind tomorrow for some inexplicable reason? <br /><br />John: Good thing I skipped to the end. I guess this will count as the third time now.<br /><br />If you want to remain ignorant then, yes. After all, this is the second time I've pointed out this is a common misconception of Popperians and skipping it seemed to work well for you then.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13447806800071923252012-06-06T12:05:18.378-07:002012-06-06T12:05:18.378-07:00Scott: "Also, kindly point out where I comple...Scott: "Also, kindly point out where I completely reject reason and logic when I supposedly "loose". Please be specific."<br /><br />The last two big conversations we had ended up with you claiming you objected to inductive reasoning which is what is enabling you to read and understand this now. I don't feel like going back to point it out to you because I'm tired of talking to you because there is no point.<br /><br />Scott: "How am I confusing the two?"<br /><br />I don't know. I think it's quite simple for most people to compartmentalize a creator from the process by which he creates. But the last time I asked you the difference between proximate and ultimate causes, you did not respond. Perhaps now would be a good time to work through that.<br /><br />Scott: "Without an explanatory theory from which to extrapolate observations from, it's naive inductivism"<br /><br />Good thing I skipped to the end. I guess this will count as the third time now.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69811206224672138532012-06-06T09:18:21.125-07:002012-06-06T09:18:21.125-07:00Scott: "The underlying expiation behind evolu...Scott: "The underlying expiation behind evolutionary theory is that this knowledge is *created* using conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation in the form of natural selection. This explains the origin of this knowledge."<br /><br />John: It seems to explain the destruction of knowledge and the extinction of almost all species.<br /><br />Does my lack of belief that Jesus was actually resurrected mean that Christianly doesn't claim that it's though Jesus's death and resurrection that we will be saved? No it doesn't. <br /><br />In the same sense, you're conflating the underlying explanation behind evolutionary theory with your incredulity of that explanation. <br /><br />John: If you are trying to explain destruction and extinction. <br /><br />If a designer preprogramed each species with knowledge representing a fixed number of built in response mechanisms for a fixed number of environments, then the extinction of those species would, in part, be because the designer didn't program them with the knowledge of how to response for those environments. Right?<br /><br />So, the origin these adaptations, or the lack there off, is the origin of the knowledge used to build them. <br /><br />John: Unless it's true. Then it explains it at basically the same level of detail that evolution does.<br /><br />Again, you're conflating the underlying explanation behind evolutionary theory with your incredulity of that explanation. <br /><br />Creationism is misleadingly named because it a general purpose means of denying that creation actually took place. If God crated the universe we observe 10 minutes ago, then he would have authored the comment I'm replying to, not you. Just because your personal theological beliefs assume otherwise doesn't mean this doesn't represent the same sort of appeal. <br /><br />On one hand, the underlying explanation behind evolutionary theory is that knowledge of how to build biological adaptations were actually *created* through the error correction process of evolutionary mechanisms. Specifically, these mechanisms are forms of conjecture and refutation that create non-explanatory knowledge. For example, the knowledge of how to build the mammalian eye didn't exist before then, but evolved from the knowledge of how to build a single light sensitive cell. <br /><br />On the other hand, creationism clams that it was actually some designer that put the knowledge of how to create the mammalian eye the genome of mammals, and the origin of this knowledge cannot be explained because God supposedly claimed to have always existed.<br /><br />So, it's not the same level as evolution, because evolution doesn't claim that mammals "just appeared", complete with the knowledge of how to build eyes, already present. <br /><br />John: Except that we don't usually see machinery appearing without intention.<br /><br />Scott: Of course, using that logic, we've never observed intention appearing without a complex material nervous system, such as the human brain. So, you think all beings that exhibit intention have material brains, right?<br /><br />John: This is known as question begging.<br /><br />Without an explanatory theory from which to extrapolate observations from, it's naive inductivism. <br />Specially…<br /><br />John: <i>Except that <b>we don't usually see</b> machinery appearing without intention.</i><br /><br />Scott: <i>… we've <b>never observed</b> intention appearing without a complex material nervous system, such as the human brain</i> <br /><br />A summary of the criticism of the most common forms of inductivism can be found <a href="http://www.criticalrationalism.net/2010/03/03/six-varieties-of-inductivism/" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Do you have a solution for this criticism other than the parochial claim that I'm "rejecting reason and logic"?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23898753982848603332012-06-06T09:17:15.937-07:002012-06-06T09:17:15.937-07:00John: I'm going to start dodging all your ques...John: I'm going to start dodging all your questions because I'm tired of correcting your supposed misunderstandings. And yes, this is helped along by your complete rejection of reason and logic when you lose.<br /><br />Before you could *start* dogging them, you'd have to had actually addressed the substance of the questions I posed in the first place. Also, kindly point out where I completely reject reason and logic when I supposedly "loose". Please be specific. <br /><br />Scott: Just so I have this straight, what if an theory of biological complexity is impossible because a being in some unexplainable realm, using knowledge of some inexplicable origin, reached in to our bubble and did it? How is this different that what I wrote <a href="http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/complex-patterns-have-been-discovered.html?showComment=1338787389776#c3592585891529138863" rel="nofollow">here</a>?<br /><br />John: No Scott, the reason you don't have it straight this time is because you are conflating the creator with the method of creation.<br /><br />How am I confusing the two? Why is this like pulling teeth? Again, before you could *start* dogging the questions I've posed, you'd have to had actually addressed the substance of them in the first place. <br /><br />Are you saying the designer having done it this particular way, despite supposedly having the knowledge and ability to do otherwise, *is* explicable while the means by which the designer did it is not? If so, then what it that explanation? Please be specific. <br /><br />Otherwise, it's unclear how this is different than what I wrote in the referenced comment.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14686475142294156952012-06-05T23:17:38.857-07:002012-06-05T23:17:38.857-07:00Scott: "As I expected, you dogged the questio...Scott: "As I expected, you dogged the question, despite having explicitly clarified my comment. Let me guess, you skipped that part because I "object" to inductive reasoning as well?"<br /><br />I'm going to start dodging all your questions because I'm tired of correcting your supposed misunderstandings. And yes, this is helped along by your complete rejection of reason and logic when you lose.<br /><br />Scott: "Just so I have this straight, what if an theory of biological complexity is impossible because a being in some unexplainable realm, using knowledge of some inexplicable origin, reached in to our bubble and did it? How is this different that what I wrote <a href="http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/complex-patterns-have-been-discovered.html?showComment=1338787389776#c3592585891529138863>here</a>?"<br /><br />No Scott, the reason you don't have it straight this time is because you are conflating the creator with the method of creation.<br /><br />Scott: "The underlying expiation behind evolutionary theory is that this knowledge is *created* using conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation in the form of natural selection. This explains the origin of this knowledge."<br /><br />It seems to explain the destruction of knowledge and the extinction of almost all species.<br /><br />Scott: "As such, it serves an explanatory purpose."<br /><br />If you are trying to explain destruction and extinction.<br /><br />Scott:"On the other hand, a being that "just was" complete with the knowledge of how to build adaptations and organisms that just appeared" complete with the knowledge of how to build these adaptations, already present." do not."<br /><br />Unless it's true. Then it explains it at basically the same level of detail that evolution does.<br /><br />Scott: "Of course, using that logic, we've never observed intention appearing without a complex material nervous system, such as the human brain."<br /><br />This is known as question begging. The point at issue is precisely whether intention apparent in the designs of life and indeed the brain itself is real or not. If it is, then we have indeed observed intention appearing without human brains. Given that the configurations of protein complexes have the appearance of highly advanced machinery, I find the latter possibility more likely.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35940838890249293532012-06-05T13:14:34.253-07:002012-06-05T13:14:34.253-07:00Yes, he does appear to be confused about how scien...Yes, he does appear to be confused about how science works, as there is a reason why evolutionary theory is separate from abiogenesis.<br /><br />His objection is like calming umbrellas are useless unless until we have an exhaustive explanation of meteorology.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80903233468559632302012-06-05T13:08:29.228-07:002012-06-05T13:08:29.228-07:00Scott: "Are you sure about that? Then why don...Scott: "Are you sure about that? Then why don't you point exactly where I got it wrong. Please be specific."<br /><br />Scott: To clarify, why isn't "That's just what God must have wanted" the best explanation we can possibly have for anything? <b>I know you do not claim everything would be inexplicable beyond, "that's just what God must have wanted", the question is, why don't you?</b><br /><br />John: By "so many words" I mean most of what you have me saying. Throw a dart if you really care.<br /><br />As I expected, you dogged the question, despite having explicitly clarified my comment. Let me guess, you skipped that part because I "object" to inductive reasoning as well?<br /><br />Scott: "Again, a being that "just was" complete with the knowledge of how to build adaptations, already present, doesn't serve any explanatory purpose."<br /><br />John: How do you explain the creation of something that claims it always existed? If it is true, then what answer would you like instead of the truth?<br /><br />Just so I have this straight, what if an theory of biological complexity is impossible because a being in some unexplainable realm, using knowledge of some inexplicable origin, reached in to our bubble and did it? How is this different that what I wrote <a href="http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/complex-patterns-have-been-discovered.html?showComment=1338787389776#c3592585891529138863>here</a>?<br /><br />Scott: "This is because one could more economically state that organisms "just appeared" complete with the knowledge of how to build these adaptations, already present."<br /><br />John: For all you shove into the OOL box, you could just as economically say that over gradual evolution as well. Check out Thorton's link to the corticoid receptors if you would like to see your conjecture and refutation at work over 450 million years.<br /><br />The underlying expiation behind evolutionary theory is that this knowledge is *created* using conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation in the form of natural selection. This explains the origin of this knowledge. As such, it serves an explanatory purpose. <br /><br />On the other hand, a being that "just was" complete with the knowledge of how to build adaptations and organisms that just appeared" complete with the knowledge of how to build these adaptations, already present." do not. <br /><br />Again, it's as if you understand the problem, yet reuse to see it, <br /><br />John: Except that we don't usually see machinery appearing without intention. <br /><br />Of course, using that logic, we've never observed intention appearing without a complex material nervous system, such as the human brain. So, you think all beings that exhibit intention have material brains, right?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39760267026763087332012-06-05T00:13:58.967-07:002012-06-05T00:13:58.967-07:00Scott: "Are you sure about that? Then why don...Scott: "Are you sure about that? Then why don't you point exactly where I got it wrong. Please be specific."<br /><br />By "so many words" I mean most of what you have me saying. Throw a dart if you really care.<br /><br />Scott: "I won't be holding my breath."<br /><br />Trust me, I notice that about you. It would have helped you though in this case.<br /><br />Scott: "Again, a being that "just was" complete with the knowledge of how to build adaptations, already present, doesn't serve any explanatory purpose."<br /><br />How do you explain the creation of something that claims it always existed? If it is true, then what answer would you like instead of the truth?<br /><br />Scott: "This is because one could more economically state that organisms "just appeared" complete with the knowledge of how to build these adaptations, already present."<br /><br />For all you shove into the OOL box, you could just as economically say that over gradual evolution as well. Except that we don't usually see machinery appearing without intention. Check out Thorton's link to the corticoid receptors if you would like to see your conjecture and refutation at work over 450 million years.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54280545398871853132012-06-04T15:59:17.419-07:002012-06-04T15:59:17.419-07:00Dear Cornelius:
It's quite apparent that you ...Dear Cornelius:<br /><br />It's quite apparent that you have no understanding of science. What's the big deal about membranes anyways? Everyone knows that if you put certain lipids into water, a bi-layer spontaneously forms. <br /><br />You see, simple physico-chemical forces can explain these things. Please wise up. It's very frustrating that you can't quite come to grips with all of this.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70966529587374675032012-06-04T12:50:52.353-07:002012-06-04T12:50:52.353-07:00I found this sentence also interesting, "The ...I found this sentence also interesting, "The evolutionary scenarios that we analyze are predicated on the standard model of cell evolution and on the related assumption that the emergence of RNA and proteins preceded the appearance of membrane-encased life forms"ForJahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15227953181409298542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18467270015989129302012-06-04T10:46:49.951-07:002012-06-04T10:46:49.951-07:00To clarify, why isn't "That's just wh...To clarify, why isn't "That's just what God must have wanted" the best explanation we can possibly have for anything? I know you do not claim everything would be inexplicable beyond, "that's just what God must have wanted", the question is, why don't you?<br /><br />I'm merely taking what appears to be your own argument seriously. <br /><br />For example, can we explain how God did it? Can we explain how God knew which gene sequences would result in the biological adaptations he wanted? How was the knowledge he used created? <br /><br />Again, a being that "just was" complete with the knowledge of how to build adaptations, already present, doesn't serve any explanatory purpose. This is because one could more economically state that organisms "just appeared" complete with the knowledge of how to build these adaptations, already present.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90878125897680154452012-06-04T10:02:00.538-07:002012-06-04T10:02:00.538-07:00Are you sure about that? Then why don't you po...Are you sure about that? Then why don't you point exactly where I got it wrong. Please be specific. <br /><br />I won't be holding my breath.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.com