Ball Don’t Lie
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
How Religion Drives Science and Why it Matters
Cornelius Hunter
Blog Archive
-
▼
2013
(148)
-
▼
February
(16)
- This Circadian Clock Protein is Finely-Tuned (and ...
- A “Sulfur-For-Phosphorus” Strategy
- Guess the Source
- This Week’s Dispute Between Evolutionists Can’t Hi...
- Evolutionist Professor Quotes Laplace
- Oops, Evolution Forgot About the Eukaryotes
- Presenting Anomalocaris: Look What Those Primitive...
- How to Obtain a Fair Result
- The Warfare Thesis is Not Going Away
- New Study Indicates Geomagnetic Imprinting in Salmon
- The Exosome: RNA Degradation and Evolution
- Whitney Tilson Reaps What He Sows
- Plant Growth and Evolution
- Tonight’s Feature Presentation: Epigenetics, The N...
- Evolutionist: “Evolutionary Processes Not Fully Un...
- Oops, Friedman Goes There: Altruism is nth+1 Contr...
-
▼
February
(16)
Gee. All that whining and pleading about please oh please come to Jesus!, and three days later you're right back to misrepresenting science and lying your butt off.
ReplyDeleteWhat was Jesus' view on lying CH? What does the Bible say about bearing false witness?
It's funny how psychopath Thorton is always accusing Christians of being liars (were you molested as a child by some Christian, Thorton?) when the most consistent and persistent liar on this forum is Thorton himself. I am reminded that Dawkins suffered similarly as a child, some encounter with some perverted priest or other. LOL.
DeleteWho is Thorton working for? Is he getting paid for spewing crap on this forum day in and day out? Or was his childhood experience with Christianity so traumatic that he can't help it anymore?
On the miniscule chance that any of the IDiots posting here are interested in the actual science, CH has one again dishonestly equivocated between two distinctly different types of altruism.
ReplyDeleteKin selection altruism occurs between blood relatives where one individual sacrifices for the benefit of its close relatives. This is the kind of altruism William Friedman spoke of in his plant experiments.
Reciprocal altruism is where an individual sacrifices for the benefit of another non-related individual with the expectation the favor will be returned somewhere in the future. That is the common human behavior as exhibited by Mother Teresa.
Cornelius Goebbels here never lets things like truth or honesty get in the way of his anti-evolution rants.
Thorton:
DeleteHow about a case where a person gives up his life for another person, like when a soldier jumps on a hand greande to save his comrades? And I don't think Mother Theresa expeced to get anything from the people she helped. And how can you explain her volutary celibacy in Darwinian terms.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHow about a case where a person gives up his life for another person,
DeleteIt's still the same drive to be altruistic.
Instincts do not operate on very specific and compicated parameters. Why would an instinct to only eat no more sugar and fatty foods than is healthy evolve in an environment where such foods are rare? The insinct 'eat sugary, fatty foods' will be enough. It is only when the environment changes that this exact same instinct begins to be a problem. Do you see?
And how can you explain her volutary celibacy in Darwinian terms.
Because we can choose to override our natural instincts. We do it all the time. To pick a silly example, we do it everytime we go food shopping while hungry and resist the urge to eat the food there and then.
She had no evolutionary drive to be celibate. She chose that life for herself because she believed it was part of living a holy life of abstinence. That's a conscious decision, not a biological urge.
T: Kin selection altruism occurs between blood relatives where one individual sacrifices for the benefit of its close relatives. This is the kind of altruism William Friedman spoke of in his plant experiments.
DeleteJ: The phrase "sacrifices for the benefit of ..." is a teleological phrase. It implies foresight, volition and sentience. Do you really want to assign these attributes to plants?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThorton said: "Reciprocal altruism is where an individual sacrifices for the benefit of another non-related individual with the expectation the favor will be returned somewhere in the future. That is the common human behavior as exhibited by Mother Teresa."
ReplyDeleteIf Mother Teresa behaved as she did because she expected the favor will be returned by her LORD and Saviour, would you credit that to evolution too?
Game over? What rubbish!
ReplyDeleteAltruistic behaviour has evolved in humans. And it evolved in humans while we were still tree-dwelling social apes who lived in small most-family units when those around you you were helping were likely to be your close relatives. This is all perfectly in keeping with kin selection altruism. Virtually all social animals engage in this.
What changed was not our desire to help others, but our ABILITY to do so. In the modern world it is not only possible, but easy, to travel freely across the globe, and common for us to live in large, cosmopolitan cities populated by people with a huge diversity of backgrounds.
Many instincts which made perfect sense as they were evolving find themselves in a curious position in the modern age. For example, we evolved a taste for fatty, sugar-rich foods in an environment where such foods are rare should be savoured when found. But in an environment where over-indulgence is easy and dangerous, the very same pallette brings about very different results.
Same animals. Same drives. Same instincts. Different environments.
There is nothing here at all which remotely challenges evolution, let alone the slam-dunk, checkmate move Cornelius claims to have. Just more misguided, misunderstood hot air.
Ritchie:
DeleteAltruistic behaviour has evolved in humans.
How many mutations did it take? What genes were involved?
The best explanation is that altruism was designed in.
Joe -
DeleteHow many mutations did it take? What genes were involved?
Not everything in biology is the result of mutations. Behaviour is learned, at least initially. If you teach, say, a dog to perform a trick, he has learned a new behaviour, but his genes are unchanged.
The best explanation is that altruism was designed in.
That isn't even an explanation at all. Not until you explain precisely HOW it was designed in. Until then 'It was designed' has the explanatory power of 'It was magic'.
So Stonehenge isn't designed because we don't know how it was constructed.
DeleteYou are a moron, Ritchie.
So Stonehenge isn't designed because we don't know how it was constructed.
DeleteWe do know how it was designed.
http://www.stonehenge.co.uk/history.php
Moving large lumps of stone is demonstrably in the power of ancient people. We have designers, we have various methods of construction. Design here is a reasonable inference.
It is not reasonable when we have no candidate designers and absolutely no proposed methods of design. All that leaves us with is a big pile of nothing.
Which would explain why ID produces no science whatsoever. No hypotheses, no theories, no experiments, no data, nothing at all. It is sterile. Dead. Useless.
You are a moron, Ritchie.
Ah, insults. The last refuge of the desperate.
I saw Mother Teresa long time ago back in Europe when I was forced by my parents to be at the religious festival. This little person, almost like a kid came up on stage, waved for 5 seconds looking very shy and quickly walked back.
ReplyDeleteLater on (when I matured) I realized how special person she was.
Mother Teresa
Every coin has two sides. For all the wonderful good Mother Teresa did in caring for the poor of Calcutta she also was part of the problem. MT was a strong advocate of "traditional woman's role" of being subservient and raising children. MT also vehemently opposed all forms of birth control, preferring that poor women stay home and breed like rabbits. She thought women should be "barefoot in the kitchen and pregnant" as the saying goes.
DeleteMT could have used her considerable influence to reduce the population overload that caused the poverty she fought against, but she didn't.
I understand she wasn't perfect, no human is but she devoted her life to help lots of people. "barefoot and pregnant" would be too much, I think everyone agrees by standards of any era.
DeletePolitical correctness may make some think men had more important role in old times and women were less significant. As far as I can remember my grandparents seemed equal in most ways, they just had different roles in the job of raising the family.
There is something interesting going on as reported by the new University of Washington study.
report
It appears there is a benefit to maintaining old fashioned lifestyle ie families sticking to traditional gender roles do more jiggy. Dare I mention my family leans towards traditional ways (but far from any extremes ).
:D
Good luck to 49ers.
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete"" """How about a case where a person gives up his life for another person,"""
It's still the same drive to be altruistic.
Instincts do not operate on very specific and compicated parameters. Why would an instinct to only eat no more sugar and fatty foods than is healthy evolve in an environment where such foods are rare? The insinct 'eat sugary, fatty foods' will be enough. It is only when the environment changes that this exact same instinct begins to be a problem. Do you see?""
When a oerson knowingly sacrfices his life for another, what does that have to do with a changing environment? When people eat fatty foods, they don't really appreciate fully the harm they are doing.
And, if altruism evolved so that we can be assured of mutual help when we need it, why do some people lack altruism. REciprocal altruism only works when everyone practices it.
I guess people really do have the ability to choose to be altruisitic or not.
nat -
DeleteWhen a oerson knowingly sacrfices his life for another, what does that have to do with a changing environment?
Apparently you didn't understand my comparison.
The instinct to eat fatty foods arose while humans lived in an environment where overeating was extremely unlikely. The instinct 'eat fatty foods' alone would have been a helpful and useful one. It is only when we humans find ourselves in different surroundings that the same insinct becomes a problem.
The same with altruism. It arose when we lived in small, family/tribal units where a general instinct to help those around you usually meant you were helping a family member. A general indiscriminate desire to be helpful led to a cohesive, working clan/tribe/unit. The modern age sees scores of charity workers, all labouring hard for the benefit of others not even remotely related to them (except in the broadest, evolutionary sense). But what has changed is not the human or its altruistic instinct, but the environment.
And, if altruism evolved so that we can be assured of mutual help when we need it, why do some people lack altruism. REciprocal altruism only works when everyone practices it.
In a society where everyone is altruistic, a single selfish person can reap big rewards in the short term. Long term it is not a successful strategy because too many selfish people lead to the breakdown of the cohesive social unit, but in a group where altruism is the rule, selfishness will be rewarded in the short term.
I guess people really do have the ability to choose to be altruisitic or not.
Of course we do. Just as we have the ability to choose whether or not to eat. Some people in the course of history have voluntarily starved themselves to death. But that doesn't mean we don't feel hunger.
R: we have the ability to choose whether or not to eat. Some people in the course of history have voluntarily starved themselves to death.
ReplyDeleteJ: How did this voluntary capacity originate? You have contended that science must assume naturalism. Doesn't this mean human volition is a factoid outside the realm of scientific inquiry? What else is?
How did this voluntary capacity originate?
DeleteI don't know precisely, but the capacity for free will certainly seems to increase in tandem with intelligence. Indeed, I'm not sure if I'd even differentiate much between the two. Surely the benchmark of intelligence is the ability to reason apart from your insitictive responses to stimuli? What the problem with concluding that volition simply originated as a higher brain function?
You have contended that science must assume naturalism.
Correct.
Doesn't this mean human volition is a factoid outside the realm of scientific inquiry?
I don't see why. Human volition is not un- sub- or super- natural. It is a huge part of one of an extremely fertile, if embryonic, field of scientific study - psychology.
Liar for Jesus Jeff
DeleteYou have contended that science must assume naturalism.
Please explain how to do science when you don't assume naturalism but have to allow for unpredictable and random supernatural interference in all your results.
You IDiots have been ignoring that question for the better part of a decade.
empty bluster boy:
DeletePlease explain how to do science when you don't assume naturalism but have to allow for unpredictable and random supernatural interference in all your results.
Naturalism is a failed philosphy. And we do science via our knowledge of cause and effect relationships- as always.
Hey joey, why don't you respond in a relevant manner to what Thorton actually said:
Delete"Please explain how to do science when you don't assume naturalism but have to allow for unpredictable and random supernatural interference in all your results."
Oh, by the way, joey, you say that "ID doesn't require the supernatural." but you also say that "Naturalism is a failed philosphy."
DeleteMake up your puny, deranged mind, joey.
P.S. Buy a vowel.
J: Doesn't this mean human volition is a factoid outside the realm of scientific inquiry?
DeleteRitchie: I don't see why. Human volition is not un- sub- or super- natural. It is a huge part of one of an extremely fertile, if embryonic, field of scientific study - psychology.
J: Then you're using the word "naturalism" in a different sense than is meant in the phrase "methodological naturalism." Because "methodological naturalism" deals with that which is repeatable under the same conditions. Free-will, by definition, does not necessarily repeat under the same conditions. So define "naturalism" in the way you mean it.
Methodological Naturalism is simply the belief that natural events have natural causes and that there are physical laws which we can discover and understand. As opposed to Metaphysical Naturalism, which is a belief that no supernatural realm or forces exist.
DeleteRepeatability is a big part of the scientific process ideally, but not an essential one. There are various events which are unrepeatable, and science can still investigate them - analyse them and glean what they can. Methodological naturalism will simply posit that such events have natural causes.
So what, then, does "natural" mean? Defining it as "characterized by being part of nature" just begs the next question--what is "nature?"
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOkay, well then let's use "the material world" as a definition for nature. Does this help?
DeleteNatural objects, beings and forces are either directly detectable, or have effects which are detectable.
A table is a natural object. It is detectable.
Gravity is a natural force. Its effects are detectable.
God is supernatural. He is not detectable.
That there is a “world” of 3-dimensionally-extended beings is an inference. Some theorists don’t believe it. That there is an “order” of event-regularities is also an inference. There is an infinite set of logical possibilities for which the inferred regularity of events is a fluke inference. Whence our ability to know it’s not a fluke, then?
ReplyDeleteAs for detecting intentional “selves,” this too is an analogical inference. Selves are not detectable empirically, divine or no.
In short, defining nature is the equivalent of stating a significant aspect of one’s metaphysics. The problem I see with your metaphysics is that I can’t see how it intelligibly grounds the existence of warranted belief.
What a load of old nonsense.
DeleteThat all sounds a terribly verbose way of advancing the old problems:
How do I know I really exist?
How do I know the world aorund me really exists>
Well I'm sorry but that's philosophy, not science. You just have to accept the fact that you do exist, as so does the world around you. Yes, those may be assumptions, but if you don't make them then you'll just sit motionless on the floor wonder if the starvation that's slowly eating you away actually exists.
You exist. And so does the world around you. If you doubt this, then why do you bother interacting with the world around you at all?
R: Well I'm sorry but that's philosophy, not science.
ReplyDeleteJ: No, that's logic, which both synthetic philosophy and science depend on.
R: You just have to accept the fact that you do exist, as so does the world around you.
J: It certainly seems that one can't be consistent over time trying to deny one's intuitions. But one can, for a moment, realize that apart from benevolent/competent design, those intuitions are not known to be true. Indeed, it's naturalistic scientists that love to tell us we can't trust our intuitions. So it's the modern scientific approach that fails by your own argument.
R: Yes, those may be assumptions, but if you don't make them then you'll just sit motionless on the floor wonder if the starvation that's slowly eating you away actually exists.
J: That's where you're wrong. If those low-level inferences (not volitional assumptions) are not true, it would NOT follow that there is a floor or anything else. There's an infinite set of other logical possibilities that one couldn't rule out once you deny the validity of fundamental intuitions, as many modern scientists do.
Jeff
ReplyDeleteIt certainly seems that one can't be consistent over time trying to deny one's intuitions. But one can, for a moment, realize that apart from benevolent/competent design, those intuitions are not known to be true.
How does 'design' do anything to resolve the conundrum of how we can be sure we, and the world around us, exists? The problem is how we know this. And the problem is identical whether we and the world around us was created or not.
Indeed, it's naturalistic scientists that love to tell us we can't trust our intuitions. So it's the modern scientific approach that fails by your own argument.
Indeed, we must trust evidence over intuition. But I do not advocate methodological naturalism just because it is intuitive. I advocate it because it is absolutely essential for performing science.
This is the key point here which I feel you are failing to grasp. If we did not, as scientists, assume naturalism, then science would be utterly impossible to perform. Totally impossible. Science would grind to a halt if we were able to insert 'magic' or 'miracle' to any anomalous piece of data.
That's where you're wrong. If those low-level inferences (not volitional assumptions) are not true, it would NOT follow that there is a floor or anything else. There's an infinite set of other logical possibilities that one couldn't rule out once you deny the validity of fundamental intuitions, as many modern scientists do.
You are just playing philosophical games again. And it's cute, but not productive.
Please take the time to read the following post. It is not overly long, and simple enough to follow easily:
http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/naturalism.html
R: How does 'design' do anything to resolve the conundrum of how we can be sure we, and the world around us, exists? The problem is how we know this. And the problem is identical whether we and the world around us was created or not.
DeleteJ: The only non-circular way of defining naturalism is to define as the site you provided does -- the view that all events are deterministic. This rules out free-will. This in turn rules out normativity for thought. This in turn means no belief is knowably worse than any other in an non-relativistic sense.
So even though my view has the same problems as any at that the absolute level, it does ground the intelligibility of true non-relativistic normativity in thought, which allows for meaningful debate between people who accept the same axioms. Your view can't even do that.
R: Indeed, we must trust evidence over intuition.
J: Is it intuitive that there is such a thing as evidence? If not, how do you know there is such a thing as evidence? If so, why does this intuition have to be accepted without qualification while others can't be?
R: You are just playing philosophical games again. And it's cute, but not productive.
J: It's not a game. It's the nature of logical analysis.
R: Please take the time to read the following post. It is not overly long, and simple enough to follow easily:
http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/naturalism.html
J: I didn't even have to finish it to see that it defines naturalism the way I do, not as you do:
"As already stated, naturalism is one of the basic guiding principles of science. It requires that supernatural causes and agents must be ruled out as scientific explanations for natural phenomena; all proposed scientific explanations must be testable and repeatable,"
You insisted above that repeatability is not an essential attribute of naturalistic phenomena. Thus, by this site (and my definition as well), science rules out the existence of free-will. Have you thought through the implications of that? They're profound.
The only non-circular way of defining naturalism is to define as the site you provided does -- the view that all events are deterministic. This rules out free-will
DeleteUmmm, I don't remember linking to any site that defined naturalism in terms of determinism and free will. These are totally unrelated concepts.
So even though my view has the same problems as any at that the absolute level, it does ground the intelligibility of true non-relativistic normativity in thought, which allows for meaningful debate between people who accept the same axioms.
But it rests wholly on an entirely hypothetical premise. That is its massive and unavoidable flaw.
Is it intuitive that there is such a thing as evidence? If not, how do you know there is such a thing as evidence? If so, why does this intuition have to be accepted without qualification while others can't be?
And you're back to playing this ridiculous philosophy game again.
It's not a game. It's the nature of logical analysis.
No, it is a game because you are applying it selectively.
If you were to be consistent you would acknowledge that we can believe our senses or we cannot. Those are our options.
When it comes to the notion of a designed world, a created world, you are quite happy to accept this. But when it comes to a non-created world, you start on with this whole 'how do we know we know what we think we know?' stuff.
It won't rescue you from the fact that your design hypothesis is just an assumption. These philosophical games are not giving us any reason to think it is likely to be true.
"As already stated, naturalism is one of the basic guiding principles of science. It requires that supernatural causes and agents must be ruled out as scientific explanations for natural phenomena; all proposed scientific explanations must be testable and repeatable,"
This is a definition I am perfectly happy with. I see nothing here about determinism or free will.
Moreover the whole point of it was to demonstrate that science absolutely must assume naturalism. I assume you missed that if you didn't get any further than the definition of naturalism...?
You insisted above that repeatability is not an essential attribute of naturalistic phenomena.
Okay, I see the confusion on this point.
I was talking about practicalities. It is not always practically possible to repeat an experiment. This is different from an experiment being repeatable in theory.
Thus, by this site (and my definition as well), science rules out the existence of free-will.
Ummm, no. That is a massive step away from naturalism - a total non-sequitur. What has science being repeatable have to do with free-will?
R: Ummm, I don't remember linking to any site that defined naturalism in terms of determinism and free will. These are totally unrelated concepts.
ReplyDeleteJ: To say event sequences are repeatable from the same initial conditions is the same thing as saying they are deterministic.
R: But it rests wholly on an entirely hypothetical premise. That is its massive and unavoidable flaw.
J: Then there's no such thing as normativity to thought. Because your beliefs, per your view, are not intelligibly better or worse than mine in any conceivable, non-relativistic sense.
R: And you're back to playing this ridiculous philosophy game again.
J: No, I'm pointing out how you can't avoid circularity.
R: No, it is a game because you are applying it selectively.
J: How so?
R: If you were to be consistent you would acknowledge that we can believe our senses or we cannot. Those are our options.
J: On the contrary, it's an option, as some theorists hold, that there's no such thing as senses if, by that, you mean that senses consist of 3-dimensionally-extended particles.
R: It won't rescue you from the fact that your design hypothesis is just an assumption. These philosophical games are not giving us any reason to think it is likely to be true.
J: It's not JUST an assumption. It's one that allows for a finite number of ad-hoc hypotheses in our explanations. That's no small thing.
R: "As already stated, naturalism is one of the basic guiding principles of science. It requires that supernatural causes and agents must be ruled out as scientific explanations for natural phenomena; all proposed scientific explanations must be testable and repeatable,"
This is a definition I am perfectly happy with. I see nothing here about determinism or free will.
J: It means there either is no such thing as free-will, or that science can't assume that all events are natural.
R: Moreover the whole point of it was to demonstrate that science absolutely must assume naturalism.
J: If there's free-will, it can't assume that. It can only assume that some event sequences are natural, not all.
R: Okay, I see the confusion on this point.
I was talking about practicalities. It is not always practically possible to repeat an experiment. This is different from an experiment being repeatable in theory.
J: Libertarian free-will requires that the past could have been different. This means that the same initial conditions won't produce a repeatable event sequences NECESSARILY. You have to pick naturalism or free-will. You can't have both.
To say event sequences are repeatable from the same initial conditions is the same thing as saying they are deterministic.
DeleteThat is not so. Rolling a dice is a repeatable action. That does not infer that the number the dice shows was pre-determined.
Then there's no such thing as normativity to thought. Because your beliefs, per your view, are not intelligibly better or worse than mine in any conceivable, non-relativistic sense.
And perhaps that is so.
It's not JUST an assumption. It's one that allows for a finite number of ad-hoc hypotheses in our explanations. That's no small thing.
Yes it is JUST an assumption - that is the whole point.
It may be an assumption that makes your philosophising easier, but that bears no relation to whether it is more likely to be true.
It may be an assumption that we would prefer to be true, but that bears no relation to whether it actually is.
It means there either is no such thing as free-will, or that science can't assume that all events are natural.
No. You are reading far too much into this. We cannot determine anything about free will simply from scientific experiments being repeatable.
Libertarian free-will requires that the past could have been different.
And this is one of the many reason that science and philosophy are different subjects. You are trying to confuse the two.
R: That is not so. Rolling a dice is a repeatable action. That does not infer that the number the dice shows was pre-determined.
ReplyDeleteJ: No, there's no way you can duplicate the exact initial conditions. Per naturalism, if you could, the dice would roll identically every time. Hence, no free-will.
J: Then there's no such thing as normativity to thought. Because your beliefs, per your view, are not intelligibly better or worse than mine in any conceivable, non-relativistic sense.
R: And perhaps that is so.
J: Hence, debate is futile.
R: Yes it is JUST an assumption - that is the whole point.
J: All ad-hoc hypotheses are assumed tentatively. And scientists make such ad-hoc assumptions/hypotheses all the time. There's no getting around it.
R: It may be an assumption that makes your philosophising easier, but that bears no relation to whether it is more likely to be true.
J: There's no way to calculate probabilities for teleological explanations OR the ad-hoc hypotheses required for naturalistic explanations of biological data. We can only compare the number of ad-hoc hypotheses required in both. This relates to the degree of speculation involved.
R: It may be an assumption that we would prefer to be true, but that bears no relation to whether it actually is.
J: The same is true of ad-hoc hypotheses posited by scientists.
J: Libertarian free-will requires that the past could have been different.
R: And this is one of the many reason that science and philosophy are different subjects. You are trying to confuse the two.
J: So are you finally being consistent and denying the reality of libertarian free-will, or are you still going to remain contradictory and claim that all event sequences are repeatable even though some events are caused libertarianly? What you call philosophy is nothing more than deductive logic, which is used in natural science as much as it is in math, etc. You are seriously confused if you think science can function without deduction.
No, there's no way you can duplicate the exact initial conditions. Per naturalism, if you could, the dice would roll identically every time. Hence, no free-will.
DeleteYou are clearly pushing the essay I cited far further than it was ever intended. The paper was explaining the practicalities of science. Of course it is impractical for scientists to recreate every exact condition to such a degree that a rolled dice will always give the same result. This is not science, this is philosophy.
Hence, debate is futile.
Then you are just as much a fool for engaging in it as I.
All ad-hoc hypotheses are assumed tentatively. And scientists make such ad-hoc assumptions/hypotheses all the time. There's no getting around it.
They are assumed so they can be tested. And that is exactly the problem with ID - it cannot be tested. Ever. It makes no predictions, it posits no mechanisms. It is all assumption, no testing.
There's no way to calculate probabilities for teleological explanations OR the ad-hoc hypotheses required for naturalistic explanations of biological data.
There is a way to compare scientific theories - measure how well each one accounts for the observed data. And ID loses out woefully to ToE on that score.
So are you finally being consistent and denying the reality of libertarian free-will, or are you still going to remain contradictory and claim that all event sequences are repeatable even though some events are caused libertarianly?
I am not confirming or denying anything. I am merely pointing out that this is philosophy and you are being disingenuous.
This is called argument by obfuscation. You are pushing the debate back into such a nebulous realm where all things may be possible and reality is so loose-weave that black is white and ID is a sensible theory.
The fact that you have to go to such extremes at all is extremely telling.
Here in the real world, science needs to assume naturalism. It just does. And we can compare scientific theories. We just can. And ID fails even at that - it posits no mechanisms, makes no hypotheses; it is nothing but an ad hoc explanation. In total contrast to ToE, which clearly posits mechanisms, is infinitely fertile ground for hypotheses and is highly falsifiable. There really is no comparison. And it speaks volumes that you have to go to such lengths to obfuscate this simple truth.
R: Then you are just as much a fool for engaging in it as I.
ReplyDeleteJ: But I believe in the normativity of thought, Ritchie. And so might other people who read our correspondence. Now they know that you admit to being a fool. That's worth something, eh? ;)
R: They are assumed so they can be tested. And that is exactly the problem with ID - it cannot be tested. Ever. It makes no predictions, it posits no mechanisms. It is all assumption, no testing.
J: Granted. But UCA is equally unfalsifiable. We need a bona-fide causal theory that IMPLIES the effects from initial conditions in terms of event regularities. IOW, after 150 years, all we have is more teleological thinking and speculation. Physics, in the meanwhile, is making real progress because of the falsifiable nature of its theories.
R: This is called argument by obfuscation. You are pushing the debate back into such a nebulous realm where all things may be possible and reality is so loose-weave that black is white and ID is a sensible theory.
J: On the contrary. The ID approach is to minimize libertarianly-caused events to the extent logically-possible. But some have to be posited just to render the number of ad-hoc hypotheses entailed in explanation FINITE.
R: The fact that you have to go to such extremes at all is extremely telling.
J: There is nothing extreme about trying to be logically consistent.
R: Here in the real world, science needs to assume naturalism.
J: Amazing. All those theists who advanced science in the past never thought so. They just figured most event sequences (not all) were natural and went about trying to explain them in terms of falsifiable theories.
R: And ID fails even at that - it posits no mechanisms, makes no hypotheses
J: So one can never rationally infer that an event or state of affairs was intelligently designed? EVER? All such inference is irrational?
But I believe in the normativity of thought, Ritchie.
DeleteYour belief alone does not make you more likely to be correct. That is ridiculous.
Granted. But UCA is equally unfalsifiable.
No it isn't. That is a ridiculous claim you keep parrotting. UCA is highly falsifiable.
IOW, after 150 years, all we have is more teleological thinking and speculation.
No, we have EVIDENCE. That is the difference between a theory and a failure.
On the contrary. The ID approach is to minimize libertarianly-caused events to the extent logically-possible.
The idea is not to minimise the NUMBER of unknowns - it is to minimise the imporbability. And God, as a supernatural agent, will always be by definition, less probable than any naturalistic hypothesis.
There is nothing extreme about trying to be logically consistent.
You are trying to save your pet theory. And the fact you have to go to such lengths is telling.
Amazing. All those theists who advanced science in the past never thought so.
Yes they did.
Anyone can perform science no matter what their religious beliefs. You just cannot posit religious entities or forces as explanations in your work.
They just figured most event sequences (not all) were natural...
If that were true then how were they to tell the sequences that were from the ones that were not?
So one can never rationally infer that an event or state of affairs was intelligently designed? EVER? All such inference is irrational?
No, not necessarily. But you do need to posit mechanisms. You do need to say HOW the object, event or state of affairs was designed. Just crying "design" and presuming magic/miracle will fill in the gaps will not do.
R: Your belief alone does not make you more likely to be correct. That is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteJ: But it does render me consistent.
R: The idea is not to minimise the NUMBER of unknowns - it is to minimise the imporbability. And God, as a supernatural agent, will always be by definition, less probable than any naturalistic hypothesis.
J: You can' calculate the probability of abiogenesis or UCA. You're just confused.
R: Anyone can perform science no matter what their religious beliefs. You just cannot posit religious entities or forces as explanations in your work.
J: Of course. But that's just another way of saying that naturalism is not known to be true. One need only assume that the event sequences they're trying to explain are naturally-caused without assuming naturalISM.
R: If that were true then how were they to tell the sequences that were from the ones that were not?
J: They, like most people, had an idea of when they were acting volitionally as opposed to naturally.
R: No, not necessarily. But you do need to posit mechanisms.
J: They don't explain how intentions effect brain neurons when they argue evidentially for intent in courts. Because that's not necessary to how that kind of explanation works.
I responded to you on the other thread, Ritchie. But you have to click "Load More" to see it.
ReplyDeleteso I finally understand how to use the school's vast resources cheap wedding dresses to find youth literature resources they need to find about 100 papers, seriously read the summary notes, to lay the foundation for their papers. Order point of view, found among the papers in the past and avoid repeating ideas
ReplyDelete