Loose Explanations

Dense Bradford, poor RLC and silly Leibniz argument. At least I'm in good company. Leibniz:

Suppose that there be a machine, the structure of which produces thinking, feeling, and perceiving; imagine this machine enlarged but preserving the same proportions, so that you could enter it as if it were a mill. This being supposed you might visit its inside; but what would you observe there? Nothing but parts which push and move each other, and never anything which could explain perception.

Jeffrey Shallit reacts with this lightweight argument:

But Leibniz's argument is not much of an argument. He seems to take it for granted that understanding how the parts of a machine work can't give us understanding of how the machine functions as a whole. Even in Leibniz's day this must have seemed silly.

If Shallit cannot beat up anything more than straw men he needs to retire. Leibniz is not arguing that we cannot understand how a machine or brain works. His remarks (parts moving and pushing each other) indicate the opposite. Leibniz is pointing out that even when the mechanics are understood the results fall short of explaining perception, feelings and thinking. Although not explicitly stated by Leibniz, a reason for that could be the interactive nature of mind and matter. Of course only tards are not materialists so if you are a materialist you need not trouble yourself with challenges to your dogma.

This entry was posted on Monday, May 31st, 2010 at 3:16 pm and is filed under Philosophy of Mind. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/loose-explanations/trackback/

176 Responses to “Loose Explanations”

AnaxagorasRules Says:
May 31st, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Hi, Bradford,

When science (hard sciences, that is, like Physics, Chemistry, and some aspects of Biology…not the squishy ones like Psychology) is unable to measure a thing quantitatively, it spins off the road and bemucks itself. How can you measure an idea if you can't observe it? Depending on the dictionary, there are anywhere from half a million to a million or so words in the English language. Each one is an idea defined by ideas. Kant said that a science should know what is above its horizon…i.e. what is impossible for it to know. Some ideas have referents that can be observed directly and measured, but the ideas themselves cannot be measured. A specific rose has specific measurements which can be determined numerically (to a certain degree of accuracy). The idea of the rose cannot.

If you have no means of measuring a thing, scientifically, then you really have no means of differentiating it from other things. If you think you do, then you're just playing pocket pool.

Comment by AnaxagorasRules — May 31, 2010 @ 8:18 pm

AnaxagorasRules Says:
May 31st, 2010 at 8:31 pm
Hi, Bradford,

Just so there's no misunderstanding, all the instances of 'you' in my comment were not directed to you specifically, but as a general usage.

Comment by AnaxagorasRules — May 31, 2010 @ 8:31 pm

olegt Says:
May 31st, 2010 at 8:52 pm
Even great scientists made mistakes, Bradford. Leibniz is in good company. You might recall that Newton, too, used an argument from personal incredulity when he argued that the formation of the solar system could not be ascribed to natural means, hence it must have been put together by God. We know how that argument fared.

Leibniz describes a situation where you cannot see a forest for the trees. It can be applied equally well to many other topics. Like, for instance, irreversible phenomena in a physical fluid. You can examine in great details collisions of individual molecules and find that every single collision is reversible: if you play it backwards it looks the same. Yet the dynamics of the fluid—a large collection of particles—is not reversible. It's seemingly a hopeless situation: even a very detailed knowledge of the internal processes does not explain irreversibility. So, some respectable scientist by name of Loschmidt formulated this as a paradox. The paradox was nonetheless resolved. It's not enough to look at all the details of individual collisions. It turns out that you have to take into account the small uncertainties of particle positions and velocities that are inevitable because of our finite measuring abilities. With time, these uncertainties grow exponentially, giving rise to "molecular chaos" and the resulting irreversibility, as observed experimentally.

To put it simply, it's not enough to examine every single detail of a process. You have to uncover something hidden from plain view, something that no one has seen before you. Then all of a sudden you gain the understanding of the whole damn thing. That is what the scientific genius is.

The problem with ID is that its proponents are not working to gain insights into anything. They are content with the lack of knowledge. What a bunch of losers.

Comment by olegt — May 31, 2010 @ 8:52 pm

Bradford Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 1:17 am
Olegt:

You might recall that Newton, too, used an argument from personal incredulity when he argued that the formation of the solar system could not be ascribed to natural means, hence it must have been put together by God. We know how that argument fared.

Leibniz is not arguing that brains were put together by God. His argument is not one of incredulity. In fact he would not be a bit surprised by data produced about brain function. The argument made is not a direct reference to dualism but strongly suggests a basis for it. If you are going to suggest that the thoughts expressed by the sentence written by RLC and quoted is a complex of unidentified neural pathways then say it. If you believe thoughts are brain cells then say that. Are thoughts neural components? If they are emergent properties of them what exactly is meant by that?

Being content with lack of knowledge is an atheist talking point. A dumb one at that. More and more inevitably will be discovered about brain function and atheists will equate a neural process with thought. The process data is real. Conflating a physical process with consciousness is pom pom science.

Comment by Bradford — June 1, 2010 @ 1:17 am

ID guy Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 7:39 am
olegt:
You might recall that Newton, too, used an argument from personal incredulity when he argued that the formation of the solar system could not be ascribed to natural means, hence it must have been put together by God. We know how that argument fared.

Yeah it was replaced by the unscientific- ie untestable- "it's all an accident!"

What methodology was used to make that determination?

The problem with ID is that its proponents are not working to gain insights into anything.

How do you know what IDists are doing?

Comment by ID guy — June 1, 2010 @ 7:39 am

ID guy Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 7:41 am
AnaxagorasRules:
If you have no means of measuring a thing, scientifically, then you really have no means of differentiating it from other things. If you think you do, then you're just playing pocket pool.

Great- how do we measure evolution?

Please be specific…

Comment by ID guy — June 1, 2010 @ 7:41 am

olegt Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 7:48 am
Bradford wrote:

If you are going to suggest that the thoughts expressed by the sentence written by RLC and quoted is a complex of unidentified neural pathways then say it. If you believe thoughts are brain cells then say that.

No, Bradford, I do not think that thoughts are brain cells or collections* of brain cells. They are the result of neural activity.

Being content with lack of knowledge is an atheist talking point. A dumb one at that. More and more inevitably will be discovered about brain function and atheists will equate a neural process with thought. The process data is real. Conflating a physical process with consciousness is pom pom science.

Philosophy of mind has invented lots of terms that may be inaccessible to the science of mind. You seem to think that this indicates the weakness of the scientific approach. There is, however, another possibility, namely that the notions of consciousness, qualia, and the like are superfluous like are the notions of the aether, phlogiston, or simultaneous measurement of coordinate and momentum.

*Such as a neural pathway.

Comment by olegt — June 1, 2010 @ 7:48 am

Zachriel Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 9:10 am
ID guy: how do we measure evolution?

The traditional measure of evolution was darwins, factors of e per million years. Today, the preferred measure is in haldanes, or phenotypic standard deviations per generation.

Comment by Zachriel — June 1, 2010 @ 9:10 am

Bradford Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 11:30 am
Olegt: There is, however, another possibility, namely that the notions of consciousness, qualia, and the like are superfluous like are the notions of the aether, phlogiston, or simultaneous measurement of coordinate and momentum.

There is a difference. We know that thoughts exist. We can willfully modify them, analyze them and create them as we might with physical objects. I could just as easily turn this around and ask whether the study of physical brain function is needed to assess mental processes when communication and behavioral observation suffice.

Comment by Bradford — June 1, 2010 @ 11:30 am

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 11:55 am
Bradford: If Shallit cannot beat up anything more than straw men he needs to retire. Leibniz is not arguing that we cannot understand how a machine or brain works. His remarks (parts moving and pushing each other) indicate the opposite. Leibniz is pointing out that even when the mechanics are understood the results fall short of explaining perception, feelings and thinking. Although not explicitly stated by Leibniz, a reason for that could be the interactive nature of mind and matter. Of course only tards are not materialists so if you are a materialist you need not trouble yourself with challenges to your dogma.

The so called hard sciences– physics, chemistry and biology have traditionally committed to an ontology that reduces everything to 2 basic dyads:

(1) space-time
(2) matter-energy

Notice how nobody tries to explain the origin of these 2 fundamental ontological dyads. At best it is just assumed that they somehow came into existence at the very moment of the “big-bang”. Some even argue that space-time, matter-energy are sui generis. In other words, they just are so there is no need to explain them.

However, I would argue, that if pressed that even the materialist and strict naturalist’s don’t believe that everything can be reduced to these two basic dyads you at least need a universe where the laws and physical constants are finely tuned to even begin to explain the emergence of life, mind and consciousness. Where did the laws, constants this apparent fine-tunedness come from? As Paul Davies asks:

“Where do the laws of physics come from?

Why is it that we have these laws instead of some other set?

How is that we have a set of laws that drives featureless gases to life, consciousness and intelligence?”

Let me suggest that there is a third ontological dyad that can explain a lot more than #1 and #2. I call it the information-consciousness dyad. David Chalmers in his book The Conscious Mind argues for the status of information and consciousness as ontologically basic though he doesn’t use the term dyad. While Chalmers philosophically a naturalist who accepts neo-Darwinian evolution, he is, ironically, also very anti-materialist/ anti-reductionist who sees materialism as an insufficient explanation for the origin of mind and consciousness. For example in his book he writes:

Consciousness is a surprising feature of our universe. Our grounds for belief in consciousness derive solely from our experience of it. Even if we know every last detail about the physics of the universe—the configuration, causation, and evolution among all the fields and particles in the spatial temporal manifold—that information would not lead us to postulate the existence of conscious experience. My knowledge of consciousness in the first instance comes from my own case, not from any external observation. It is my first-person experience of consciousness that forces the problem on me.” (p101,102)

In other words, ontologically consciousness is a completely different kind of thing from what we encounter in either reductionistic physics or chemistry.

It appears to me that that is also what Leibnitz was arguing.

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — June 1, 2010 @ 11:55 am

don provan Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Leibniz is pointing out that even when the mechanics are understood the results fall short of explaining perception, feelings and thinking. Although not explicitly stated by Leibniz, a reason for that could be the interactive nature of mind and matter.

It could be the interactive nature of mind and matter. And mind might be something that could, itself, be explained. Or the mechanical explanation might fall short simply because we don't know enough to explain perception, feelings and thinking. There are many possible reasons that we cannot explain these things.

What should we do in order to figure out the actual explanation? You do want us to try, don't you? Or would you rather that we accept mind as an unexplanable mystery that explains the possible nature of perception, feelings and thinking and stop discussing the other possibilities?

Comment by don provan — June 1, 2010 @ 12:07 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Zachriel Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 9:10 am ID guy: how do we measure evolution?

The traditional measure of evolution was darwins, factors of e per million years. Today, the preferred measure is in haldanes, or phenotypic standard deviations per generation.

Good answer! Now, how do we measure design?

Comment by Richardthughes — June 1, 2010 @ 12:34 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Anaxagoras rules: If you have no means of measuring a thing, scientifically, then you really have no means of differentiating it from other things. If you think you do, then you're just playing pocket pool.

Not entirely true.

For instance there are a variety of scales used by clinicians to measure pain. Of course there is no objective way to measure a person's pain, but there are physical correlations which tend to match perception.

Isn't it possible that a person's perception of design, while subjective, can be measured and correlated? Humans do seem to be better equipped to perceive design than science, after all.

Comment by chunkdz — June 1, 2010 @ 1:22 pm

KC Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Good answer! Now, how do we measure design?

In "Klums"

Comment by KC — June 1, 2010 @ 1:25 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Olegt: There is, however, another possibility, namely that the notions of consciousness, qualia, and the like are superfluous like are the notions of the aether, phlogiston, or simultaneous measurement of coordinate and momentum.

That's a very bad comparison, olegt. Comparing superfluous scientific explanations to universal human experiences is so inappropriate that apples and oranges doesn't begin to describe it.

Hmmm, why would a talented up and coming theoretical physicist at one of the world's greatest universities make such an illogically flawed comparison? Could it be that culture warrioring comes before logic even in the brightest and most disciplined intellectual minds?

"What a bunch of losers."

-Olegt

Looks like it.

Fascinating.

Comment by chunkdz — June 1, 2010 @ 1:35 pm

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 2:12 pm
chunkdz: why would a talented up and coming theoretical physicist at one of the world's greatest universities make such an illogically flawed comparison? Could it be that culture warrioring comes before logic even in the brightest and most disciplined intellectual minds?

olegt: The problem with ID is that its proponents are not working to gain insights into anything. They are content with the lack of knowledge. What a bunch of losers.

Yes it does, but it also make you wonder ”why would a talented up and coming theoretical physicist at one of the world's greatest universities” want to hang around with “a bunch of losers”?

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — June 1, 2010 @ 2:12 pm

don provan Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 2:41 pm
chunkdz: Isn't it possible that a person's perception of design, while subjective, can be measured and correlated?

Certainly the perception of design can be measured. And we could use that to understand why people perceive design where there is none.

Comment by don provan — June 1, 2010 @ 2:41 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Isn't it possible that a person's perception of design, while subjective, can be measured and correlated? Humans do seem to be better equipped to perceive design than science, after all.

I think this is a great idea. For those that are especially talented at it, or are from the right bloodline or can have the funds to buy in, perhaps they can humanities 'design detectives'. The can tell us with authority what's designed and after careful study and consideration that would be in no way tied to the millstone of empiricism nor the anchor of naturalism they could tell us what the designer wants us to do and what should be done to us if we don't comply.

PS – I'm REALLY good at spotting design. I see it *everywhere*.

Comment by Richardthughes — June 1, 2010 @ 2:42 pm

Dick Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Having read through Jeff Shallit's post at his blog and some of the comments it seems that the answer to the question originally posted at Viewpoint (i.e. How can the phenomena of conscious experience – qualia, intentionality, beliefs, comprehension, etc. be explained in terms of chemical reactions occuring in neurons?) distils to this:

1. It just can and if you don't agree then you're a big, fat dummy.
2. We know it can because Dan Dennet says it can.
3. We can't explain it now, but someday we'll be able to.

In other words, the only responses the materialists at Shallit's site gave reduced to either foot stomping, appeals to authority, or faith. It all sounded pretty religious to me.

RLC

Comment by Dick — June 1, 2010 @ 3:06 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Richard and Don, et al:

Consider the Sphinx: There is no record of its design and construction. Was it designed or not?

Humans detect design by comparing it with known instances of design. When the correlation is high, it is reasonable to reach a design inference. Human minds design codes and processes that correspond to codes and processes within living cells. Nothing else is known to do so, therefore some of us (tentatively at least) reach a design inference with regards to intracellular features being designed by something at least as intelligent as humans, something that understands codes and processes. That you guys think there is something unseemly about this is simply bias and bigotry and nothing more.

Comment by kornbelt888 — June 1, 2010 @ 3:09 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 3:13 pm
1. It just can and if you don't agree then you're a big, fat dummy.
2. We know it can because Dan Dennet says it can.
3. We can't explain it now, but someday we'll be able to.

4. I don't really understand what people are saying but I sure can build a strawman!

Comment by Richardthughes — June 1, 2010 @ 3:13 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Provan: Certainly the perception of design can be measured. And we could use that to understand why people perceive design where there is none.

The interesting about ID is that design was perceived by the broad majority long before we discovered that life is highly advanced nanotechnology. A deeper focus revealed deeper design. The reductionist approach is having the exact opposite effect that a reductionist might expect.

An equally interesting question to your own is how one, like yourself, can find highly advanced nanotechnology and boldly claim "no design".

Comment by chunkdz — June 1, 2010 @ 3:15 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 3:17 pm
highly advanced nanotechnology

I also find its easy to come to a conclusion if I stick it in the premise first.

Comment by Richardthughes — June 1, 2010 @ 3:17 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 3:44 pm
richardthughes: I think this is a great idea. For those that are especially talented at it, or are from the right bloodline or can have the funds to buy in, perhaps they can humanities 'design detectives'. The can tell us with authority what's designed and after careful study and consideration that would be in no way tied to the millstone of empiricism nor the anchor of naturalism they could tell us what the designer wants us to do and what should be done to us if we don't comply.

Richard, what kind of evidence, if any, would it take to convince you that life was designed?

Comment by chunkdz — June 1, 2010 @ 3:44 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 3:48 pm
richardthughes: I also find its easy to come to a conclusion if I stick it in the premise first.

Are you suggesting that life is NOT highly advanced nanotechnology?

Comment by chunkdz — June 1, 2010 @ 3:48 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 4:03 pm
tech·nol·o·gy /tɛkˈnɒlədʒi/ Show Spelled[tek-nol-uh-jee] Show IPA
–noun
1.the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science.
2.the terminology of an art, science, etc.; technical nomenclature.
3.a technological process, invention, method, or the like.
4.the sum of the ways in which social groups provide themselves with the material objects of their civilization.

Your teleology is showing.

Comment by Richardthughes — June 1, 2010 @ 4:03 pm

Bradford Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 4:18 pm
1. It just can and if you don't agree then you're a big, fat dummy.
2. We know it can because Dan Dennet says it can.
3. We can't explain it now, but someday we'll be able to.

RTH: 4. I don't really understand what people are saying but I sure can build a strawman!

We understand what is being admitted to. There is no scientific answer to the questions posed by Dick but if you don't presume that an answer will someday support a materialist philosophical bent I'll resort to adolescent mode and call you names. That sums up the critical approach.

Comment by Bradford — June 1, 2010 @ 4:18 pm

Bradford Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Dick: In other words, the only responses the materialists at Shallit's site gave reduced to either foot stomping, appeals to authority, or faith. It all sounded pretty religious to me.

You would think someone insulted the prophet Mohamed. It does resemble religious extremism but that should come as no surprise. Leibniz's argument is viewed as a threat to materialism; a pillar of atheism.

Comment by Bradford — June 1, 2010 @ 4:24 pm

ID guy Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 5:27 pm
how do we measure evolution?

Zachriel:
The traditional measure of evolution was darwins, factors of e per million years. Today, the preferred measure is in haldanes, or phenotypic standard deviations per generation.

I am aware of both but can you point to either of those used in recent peer-reviewed articles?

I am unaware that anyone uses either of them.

Or perhaps you can tell us how many darwins or haldanes does it take to change a chimp-like population into a human population?

Please show your work.

Comment by ID guy — June 1, 2010 @ 5:27 pm

ID guy Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Richtard:
Now, how do we measure design?

Basically the same way archeologists and forensic scientists do.

The same way we have been doing it for centuries.

Comment by ID guy — June 1, 2010 @ 5:31 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 5:49 pm
Basically the same way archeologists and forensic scientists do.

The same way we have been doing it for centuries.

Oh. Ermmm. What units do THEY use?

Comment by Richardthughes — June 1, 2010 @ 5:49 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 5:51 pm
I am aware of both but can you point to either of those used in recent peer-reviewed articles?

I am unaware that anyone uses either of them

http://www.jstor.org/pss/26404...

Comment by Richardthughes — June 1, 2010 @ 5:51 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 6:04 pm
richardthughes: Your teleology is showing.

No, I just use the same terminology as the NSF.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/speech...

Furthermore, see Webster's dictionary:

Main Entry: tech·nol·o·gy
Pronunciation: \-jē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural tech·nol·o·gies
Etymology: Greek technologia systematic treatment of an art, from technē art, skill + -o- + -logia -logy
Date: 1859
1 a : the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area : engineering 2 [medical technology] b : a capability given by the practical application of knowledge [a car's fuel-saving technology]
2 : a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge [new technologies for information storage]
3 : the specialized aspects of a particular field of endeavor

Cells routinely accomplish tasks using technical processes.

Comment by chunkdz — June 1, 2010 @ 6:04 pm

AnaxagorasRules Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Hi, ID guy,

AnaxagorasRules:
If you have no means of measuring a thing, scientifically, then you really have no means of differentiating it from other things. If you think you do, then you're just playing pocket pool.

ID guy:
Great- how do we measure evolution?

Please be specific…

I don't play pocket pool.

Comment by AnaxagorasRules — June 1, 2010 @ 6:31 pm

AnaxagorasRules Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Hi, chunkdz,

Isn't it possible that a person's perception of design, while subjective, can be measured and correlated? Humans do seem to be better equipped to perceive design than science, after all.

My point is that the thought of design itself (or any other thought), as a things in and of themselves, apart from any of their referents in reality (if there are any), can't be measured in a scientific way (i.e. by using the SI standards of measure).

For example, I can think of pain while not being subjected to any pain. So how does one measure an abstracted thought of pain? Words are not the same thing as their referents. This is what I think Leibniz was essentially saying.

Comment by AnaxagorasRules — June 1, 2010 @ 6:58 pm

ID guy Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 7:22 pm
I am aware of both but can you point to either of those used in recent peer-reviewed articles?

I am unaware that anyone uses either of them

richtardhughes:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/26404...

So it's only used with microevolution.

Is there any way to measure anything other than slight changes?

Comment by ID guy — June 1, 2010 @ 7:22 pm

ID guy Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Basically the same way archeologists and forensic scientists do.

The same way we have been doing it for centuries.

Richtard:
Oh. Ermmm. What units do THEY use?

It depends on the situation.

But you don't need to worry about that.

You need to focus on producing positive evidence for your position.

Saying it ain't designed isn't science…

Comment by ID guy — June 1, 2010 @ 7:24 pm

Zachriel Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 7:28 pm
ID guy: I am unaware that anyone uses either of them.

Reznick et al., Evaluation of the Rate of Evolution in Natural Populations of Guppies, Science 1997.

Gingerich, Rates of evolution on the time scale of the evolutionary process, Contemporary Microevolution: Rate, Pattern, and Process 2001.

Hairston et al., Rapid evolution and the convergence of ecological
and evolutionary time, Ecology Letters 2005.

To name just a few.

Comment by Zachriel — June 1, 2010 @ 7:28 pm

ID guy Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Reznick et al., Evaluation of the Rate of Evolution in Natural Populations of Guppies, Science 1997.

Guppies "evolving" into guppies?

I didn't ask for evidence for baraminology.

If all you can measure is slight changes involved with microevolution then you don't have anything.

Gingerich, Rates of evolution on the time scale of the evolutionary process, Contemporary Microevolution: Rate, Pattern, and Process 2001.

Does he tell us how many mutations it took to go from land mammal to whale?

How about how many mutations for a reptile jaw to become a mammalian middle ear?

You know something testable?

Comment by ID guy — June 1, 2010 @ 7:35 pm

ID guy Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 7:40 pm
AnaxagorasRules:
I don't play pocket pool.

Then why do you have holes in all of your pants' pockets?

Comment by ID guy — June 1, 2010 @ 7:40 pm

don provan Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 8:06 pm
chunkdz: The interesting about ID is that design was perceived by the broad majority long before we discovered that life is highly advanced nanotechnology. A deeper focus revealed deeper design. The reductionist approach is having the exact opposite effect that a reductionist might expect.

A redunctionist would expect an immensely complicated function to reduce to an immensely complicated implementation. So complicated that you might be inclined to call it "nanotechnology".

Furthermore, there's nothing about ID that suggests that the designed object can't be reduced. Indeed, results to the contrary should be unsettling to ID proponents, since anything we know about that's designed can be reduced. An inability to reduce something would suggest that it must have a source other than what we know as "design".

An equally interesting question to your own is how one, like yourself, can find highly advanced nanotechnology and boldly claim "no design".

I don't claim "no design". I merely observe that the design inference is not confirmed so far by any observations. It all still boils down to "it looks designed to me". The question is whether it is designed, not whether it looks designed.

Comment by don provan — June 1, 2010 @ 8:06 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Anaxagoras rules: For example, I can think of pain while not being subjected to any pain. So how does one measure an abstracted thought of pain? Words are not the same thing as their referents. This is what I think Leibniz was essentially saying.

Not only that, but I can perceive pain while not being subjected to any pain. This can be measured through subjective ratings on a relevant pain scale.

I think it's important to seperate the perception from the sensation.

Comment by chunkdz — June 1, 2010 @ 8:16 pm

ID guy Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 8:41 pm
don provan:
Furthermore, there's nothing about ID that suggests that the designed object can't be reduced.

It's called the explanatory filter-

If chance and/ or necessity can explain/ account for something then we do not infer design.

I merely observe that the design inference is not confirmed so far by any observations.

The design inference is based on observations and experiences.

What is your explanation for what we observe- is it all an accident?

It all still boils down to "it looks designed to me".

And your position boils down to "but it ain't designed 'cause we said so."

The question is whether it is designed, not whether it looks designed.

If it "looks designed" we should be allowed to investigate that possibility.

But saying "yeah it may look designed but it ain't" or "yeah it may look designed to you but it ain't designed because it don't look designed to me but don't ask me to explain it or I will make sure you never get tenure", is sissy shit.

Comment by ID guy — June 1, 2010 @ 8:41 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Provan: A redunctionist would expect an immensely complicated function to reduce to an immensely complicated implementation.

Reductionism expects the complex to reduce to it's simpler fundamental laws or parts.

So complicated that you might be inclined to call it "nanotechnology".

Life IS nanotechnology.

Furthermore, there's nothing about ID that suggests that the designed object can't be reduced.

That's not my argument.

Indeed, results to the contrary should be unsettling to ID proponents, since anything we know about that's designed can be reduced. An inability to reduce something would suggest that it must have a source other than what we know as "design".

Do you have an example?

I don't claim "no design".

Ok, so you were talking about some hypothetical guy who claims "people perceive design where there is none". My argument stands regardless of your obtuse shenanigans.

I merely observe that the design inference is not confirmed so far by any observations.

Neither has the "no design inference' been confirmed. However there is empirical support for both.

The question is whether it is designed, not whether it looks designed.

Right, and since neither you or I can say whether life WAS or WASN'T designed, we begin with the appearance of design and critical thinking to look for clues and evaluate them. We look for analogy and rationality, discontinuity and foresight.

Comment by chunkdz — June 1, 2010 @ 8:44 pm

AnaxagorasRules Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Hi, ID guy,

hen why do you have holes in all of your pants' pockets?

Earlier, you asked me how I should measure evolution, and to be specific. Do you have any idea how much you have misinterpreted my first comment?

Comment by AnaxagorasRules — June 1, 2010 @ 10:02 pm

AnaxagorasRules Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Hi, chunkdz,

Not only that, but I can perceive pain while not being subjected to any pain. This can be measured through subjective ratings on a relevant pain scale.

I think it's important to seperate the perception from the sensation.

I think it's important to separate the thought from the perception. "Perception" has more than one connotation. For the point I'm championing, I think of perception has that part of the cognitive faculty which 'presents' the sensation to our awareness. Or equivalently, a perception is the instance of a percept. The formation of language and words are much higher up in the cognitive process.

Comment by AnaxagorasRules — June 1, 2010 @ 10:08 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 11:30 pm
Chunkdz:

No, I just use the same terminology as the NSF.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/speech...

Here we have a microcosm of ID 'research'.

1. Find legitimate science
2. scan and search for design friendly words
3. proffer as ID friendly.

No lab required!

Joe G:

It depends on the situation.

But you don't need to worry about that.

You need to focus on producing positive evidence for your position

There is no theory of ID, just anti-evolution flailings.

Saying it ain't designed isn't science…

Saying it is designed also isn't science.

Comment by Richardthughes — June 1, 2010 @ 11:30 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 11:32 pm
Richard, what kind of evidence, if any, would it take to convince you that life was designed?

seeing the designer, seeing reminants of the fabrication process, getting a message from the designer…

Comment by Richardthughes — June 1, 2010 @ 11:32 pm

ID guy Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 7:17 am
Richtard:
seeing the designer, seeing reminants of the fabrication process, getting a message from the designer…

IOW Rich ain't interested in science.

Thank you for admitting that Rich.

Now we know that you are nothing nut a troll.

Comment by ID guy — June 2, 2010 @ 7:17 am

ID guy Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 7:19 am
Richtard:
There is no theory of ID, just anti-evolution flailings.

Except ID is not anti-evolution.

IOW your ignorance is showing once again.

Also there doesn't appear to be any "theory" of evolution. Just some vague claims.

Saying it is designed also isn't science.

True. That is why we investigate. Which is more than your position does.

Comment by ID guy — June 2, 2010 @ 7:19 am

Richardthughes Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 9:51 am
So Joe, do you know accept (as others do on this board) that ID isn't science?

Comment by Richardthughes — June 2, 2010 @ 9:51 am

chunkdz Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Richardthughes: Here we have a microcosm of ID 'research'.

1. Find legitimate science
2. scan and search for design friendly words
3. proffer as ID friendly.

No lab required!

Actually you probably would need a lab to study chloroplasts. This is how they determined that the chloroplast contains "nanoscale molecular machinery".

Notice that he doesn't say "A chloroplast acts sort of kind of like a power supply". He says "Call it what you want — that’s a power supply."

Nanotechnology.

Comment by chunkdz — June 2, 2010 @ 2:39 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 2:42 pm
No lab required for the ID component, Chunkdz, because its simply parasitic.

Comment by Richardthughes — June 2, 2010 @ 2:42 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 2:49 pm
chunkdz: Richard, what kind of evidence, if any, would it take to convince you that life was designed?

richardthughes: seeing the designer, seeing reminants of the fabrication process, getting a message from the designer…

By this standard, an alien probe with unknown alien technology from beyond the Kuyper belt could land in your back yard and you would only be able to conclude that it was a meteorite.

It is interesting that your requirement is the same requirement for science – independent knowledge of the designer. In this way, you've arbitrarily adopted the same limitations that science inherently has in detecting design.

So while you sit there, staring at the alien probe and muttering "Nope. I haven't seen the designer.", critical thinkers around the world will gather around to investigate design while you wallow in your scientismic morass.

Comment by chunkdz — June 2, 2010 @ 2:49 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 2:54 pm
The probe, if detected before hand, could possibly give a point or origin is we could back cast its trajectory. I may be able to interact with the probe. We way be able to date the age of the probe.

I see you throw out that I conclude it's a meteorite. Wrong. If not this therefore that is the logical fallacy of IDers, not me.

But I am shocked, shocked I tell you that we used an analogy / thought experiment. But I understand that we can't afford to stop and legitimate research in the top secret ID labs.

Comment by Richardthughes — June 2, 2010 @ 2:54 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 3:48 pm
richardthughes: The probe, if detected before hand, could possibly give a point or origin is we could back cast its trajectory. I may be able to interact with the probe. We way be able to date the age of the probe.

Oohh! Sciency! Except your standard for design detection was not 'knowing the trajectory', 'interaction', or 'dating'. It was:

"seeing the designer, seeing reminants of the fabrication process, getting a message from the designer…"

I see you throw out that I conclude it's a meteorite. Wrong.

Ahhh, so now you want to change your standard for design detection? Fine. Let's have it.

But I am shocked, shocked I tell you that we used an analogy / thought experiment. But I understand that we can't afford to stop and legitimate research in the top secret ID labs.

Hmmm. Interesting. So we can't say if the probe was designed unless we have a top secret research lab. Your standard for design detection just keeps getting weirder and weirder. Care to clarify?

Comment by chunkdz — June 2, 2010 @ 3:48 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 3:53 pm
I threw three things out there and put ellipses at the end. IDists note – ellipses or lack thereof are not only for quotemining, in this case they represent an incomplete list.

So changing my standard is an incorrect statement. It's like asking me to name a type of animal, me saying "dog" and then you claiming I don't think cat's are animals.

Then you say "So we can't say if the probe was designed unless we have a top secret research lab." – I said nothing of the sort.

Have fun with your strawman, big bad culture warrior.

Comment by Richardthughes — June 2, 2010 @ 3:53 pm

ID guy Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Richtard:
So Joe, do you know accept (as others do on this board) that ID isn't science?

It is at least as scientific as your position- and probably more so.

It is based on observation and experience, ID can be tested.

Comment by ID guy — June 2, 2010 @ 4:01 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 4:06 pm
It is based on observation and experience, ID can be tested

Emperically?

Comment by Richardthughes — June 2, 2010 @ 4:06 pm

ID guy Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 4:19 pm
empirical:

1 : originating in or based on observation or experience
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
4 : of or relating to empiricism

Comment by ID guy — June 2, 2010 @ 4:19 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 4:27 pm
So changing my standard is an incorrect statement. It's like asking me to name a type of animal, me saying "dog" and then you claiming I don't think cat's are animals.

It's more like if I asked you if an alien space probe that lands in your backyard is designed and you can't give a straight answer.

Forgive me, richard, but you said your standard for design detection was:

"seeing the designer, seeing reminants of the fabrication process, getting a message from the designer…"

In the absence of these I presumed you would not detect design. Am I wrong about this?

Comment by chunkdz — June 2, 2010 @ 4:27 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Do you want me to explain ellipses again. Is this some mental blind spot for your sort?

Comment by Richardthughes — June 2, 2010 @ 4:35 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Emperically?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

…It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of empiricism by the use of the adjective empirical or the adverb empirically. The term refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment

Emphasis mine

Comment by Richardthughes — June 2, 2010 @ 4:39 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 4:39 pm
richardthughes: Do you want me to explain ellipses again. Is this some mental blind spot for your sort?

Well, all your examples revolve around independent objective evidence of the designer. Am I wrong in guessing that the ellipses also stand for "other independent evidence of the designer?

Or do you really think that "trajectory", "interaction" and "dating" is evidence for ID?

Help me out here.

Comment by chunkdz — June 2, 2010 @ 4:39 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 4:44 pm
I'm sorry, you want a comprehensive, exhaustive and complete list? I'll have to think forever and get back to you.

Comment by Richardthughes — June 2, 2010 @ 4:44 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 4:59 pm
richardthughes: I'm sorry, you want a comprehensive, exhaustive and complete list? I'll have to think forever and get back to you.

No need for strawmen. I never said I wanted "a comprehensive, exhaustive and complete list".

It's actually quite simple. You said:

The probe, if detected before hand, could possibly give a point or origin is we could back cast its trajectory. I may be able to interact with the probe. We way be able to date the age of the probe.

Do you think these are evidence of design? If not then why did you mention them in a discussion about what you would consider evidence of design?

Comment by chunkdz — June 2, 2010 @ 4:59 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 5:05 pm
They're not directly evidence of design but may offer further avenues of inquiry, including a chance to meet the designer in there is one.

Comment by Richardthughes — June 2, 2010 @ 5:05 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 5:22 pm
richardthughes: They're not directly evidence of design but may offer further avenues of inquiry, including a chance to meet the designer in there is one.

OK, so we're back to independent evidence of design. Since an alien probe landed in your backyard and you have no independent evidence of the designer am I correct in stating that you would not consider the space probe to be designed?

Comment by chunkdz — June 2, 2010 @ 5:22 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Describe the probe, in meticulous detail. The term 'probe' suggests it is designed. If the alien probe looks like this:

http://www.boltonmuseums.org.u...

I may have my doubts.

Comment by Richardthughes — June 2, 2010 @ 5:32 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Richardthughes: Describe the probe, in meticulous detail.

Ok. Imagine the item looks like the future of our own designs. Something that we might likely design in 1000 to 5,000 years, but is beyond our current capability.

Comment by chunkdz — June 2, 2010 @ 5:44 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 5:47 pm
What am I, nostradamus? You keep wanting to ask me "how do we know a designed thing is designed?" and the answer is "because you're telling me it is designed".

Comment by Richardthughes — June 2, 2010 @ 5:47 pm

ID guy Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Yes Richtard, unlike your position ID can be tested empirically.

Comment by ID guy — June 2, 2010 @ 5:58 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 6:02 pm
What am I, nostradamus? You keep wanting to ask me "how do we know a designed thing is designed?" and the answer is "because you're telling me it is designed".

No, I didn't say it was designed. I said it "looks like the future of our own designs. Something that we might likely design in 1000 to 5,000 years, but is beyond our current capability."

You don't have to be Nostrodamus, you just have to imagine something which we might be able to design in about 1000 years but couldn't design currently.

Without independent evidence of the designer would you fail to detect design?

Comment by chunkdz — June 2, 2010 @ 6:02 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Richardthughes

You once saluted my honesty. How about showing some of your own. It’s not a difficult question

What types of evidence other than independent evidence of the designer would lead you to conclude an object is designed?

Feel free to be as specific as you like.

When you dodge a question it makes it seem that you are afraid to answer because your words might be used against you.

The courage to be honest even when it might make you look bad or put you in a spot is a quality you are on record as admiring.

Did you not really mean it? Now is your chance

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 2, 2010 @ 6:20 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 7:29 pm
Yes Richtard, unlike your position ID can be tested empirically.

show me how.

Comment by Richardthughes — June 2, 2010 @ 7:29 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 12:30 am
FMM – do I think I could spot human creations? Probably, I have a similar frame of refernce and thought process. Alien probes – they may be amongst us now and I'd have no clue.

Wittgenstein: "If a lion could speak, we could not understand him."

Comment by Richardthughes — June 3, 2010 @ 12:30 am

ID guy Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 7:23 am
Yes Richtard, unlike your position ID can be tested empirically.

Richtard:
show me how.

First you have to show some understanding of science and investigating.

Otherwise I would be wasting my time.

Comment by ID guy — June 3, 2010 @ 7:23 am

ID guy Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 7:26 am
Tell you what richtard-

You tell us the methodology used to determine that living organisms, the solar system, galaxy and universe are the result of blind, undirected processes and I will believe you have some understanding of science and investigation.

IOW Rich tell us how to test you position so I will know what you will accept.

Good luck with that…

Comment by ID guy — June 3, 2010 @ 7:26 am

Richardthughes Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 9:25 am
First you have to show some understanding of science and investigating.

Otherwise I would be wasting my time.

I'm sure the many, many lurkers would benefit, Joe.

Comment by Richardthughes — June 3, 2010 @ 9:25 am

ID guy Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:02 am
Tell you what richtard-

You tell us the methodology used to determine that living organisms, the solar system, galaxy and universe are the result of blind, undirected processes and I will believe you have some understanding of science and investigation.

IOW Rich tell us how to test you position so I will know what you will accept.

Good luck with that…

And I am very sure many, many, many lurkers would benefit, Richtard.

Comment by ID guy — June 3, 2010 @ 10:02 am

Richardthughes Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:17 am
Joe, I can see your cards. You just wat to flail against evolutionary theory without offering anything in return.

Well, except for this:

http://intelligentreasoning.bl...

Comment by Richardthughes — June 3, 2010 @ 10:17 am

ID guy Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:44 am
Richtard,

You see whatever you want to see.

All I want to know is what you will accept before I say anything about ID.

THat way you can't run around with the goalposts.

And I can't flail away against evolutionary theory because apparently there ain't no such thang.

Berlinski is correct- it is too vague to even be a "theory".

You cannot even provide a testable hypothesis that excludes all alternatives.

And BTW if you think that is my blog then you are lying.

There is much more positive evidence for ID there than what you linked to.

Comment by ID guy — June 3, 2010 @ 10:44 am

ID guy Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:50 am
You forgot these:

For those who choose willfull ignorance over reality I offer just a glimpse of support for ID (including a testable hypothesis):

Intelligent Design: The Design Hypothesis

Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks

Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks Continued

The Design Inference in Peer-Review

wet electricity

the genetic compiler

And that was just a quick look…

Comment by ID guy — June 3, 2010 @ 10:50 am

Zachriel Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 11:07 am
ID guy: Intelligent Design: The Design Hypothesis

Except you didn't actually propose a valid hypothesis.

ID guy: If living organisms were the result of intentional design then I would expect to see that living organisms are (and contain subsystems that are) irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information.

We already know that life is complex! That's the very question that we are attempting to answer. Evolution is posited as a source of complexity adaptations. Consequently, you are simply rewording the question.

ID guy: Anti-IDists tried to counter that claim by saying the scientist involved does not share the same inference as IDists do. However that counterclaim now stands refuted:

Axe: I have in fact confirmed that these papers add to the evidence for ID. I concluded in the 2000 JMB paper that enzymatic catalysis entails "severe sequence constraints".

The problem is that Axe doesn't propose and test a Design hypothesis in the cited papers.

Comment by Zachriel — June 3, 2010 @ 11:07 am

Richardthughes Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 11:14 am
Hey, "ID guy" – you're not Joe G, then.

Comment by Richardthughes — June 3, 2010 @ 11:14 am

ID guy Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 11:35 am
Zachriel:
Intelligent Design: The Design Hypothesis

Except you didn't actually propose a valid hypothesis.

You are correct. It ain't my blog.

But what was there is a valid hypothesis.

And if you think otherwise then please present a valid hypothesis for your position so we can do the "pepsi challenge".

If living organisms were the result of intentional design then I would expect to see that living organisms are (and contain subsystems that are) irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information.

We already know that life is complex!

It is much more than just complex, ie mere complexity. It even says that in the part you cut and pasted.

Do you have reading issues?

The problem is that Axe doesn't propose and test a Design hypothesis in the cited papers.

The problem is no one on the "evolutionary" side has proposed a way to test their claims, in any paper.

Comment by ID guy — June 3, 2010 @ 11:35 am

ID guy Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 11:36 am
Hey Richtard,

It's by design.

And if you would like to meet the both of us- Joe G and Jim H- I think something can be arranged.

Comment by ID guy — June 3, 2010 @ 11:36 am

Zachriel Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 11:44 am
ID guy: And if you think otherwise then please present a valid hypothesis for your position so we can do the "pepsi challenge".

Sorry, but that's not a valid defence of the purported hypothesis.

ID guy: It is much more than just complex, ie mere complexity.

The problem is that CSI is not a well-defined quantity. Even if we take the term for its qualitative meaning, the distinction still doesn't answer the objection. We already know that life is a complex structure specifically adapted to the environment. So again, all you've done is rephrase the question, petitio principii.

Comment by Zachriel — June 3, 2010 @ 11:44 am

ID guy Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 12:08 pm
And if you think otherwise then please present a valid hypothesis for your position so we can do the "pepsi challenge".

Zachriel:
Sorry, but that's not a valid defence of the purported hypothesis.

And your saying it isn't a valid hypothessis is not valid.

You forgot to qualify the statement which you could have done by taking that "pepsi challenge".

IOW your intellectual cowardice does not mean the proposed hypothesis is invalid.

The problem is that CSI is not a well-defined quantity.

Except it is better defined than anything your position has to offer.

Comment by ID guy — June 3, 2010 @ 12:08 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Hey Richtard,

It's by design.

And if you would like to meet the both of us- Joe G and Jim H- I think something can be arranged.

Sure – what are the visiting hours at your institution?

Funny how you both use exactly the same phrases and writing style..

Comment by Richardthughes — June 3, 2010 @ 1:42 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 4:15 pm
richardthughes: Do I think I could spot human creations? Probably, I have a similar frame of refernce and thought process. Alien probes – they may be amongst us now and I'd have no clue.

Yes, we would need some similar frame of reference. That's why I described the alien object as having the appearance of "the future of our own designs". It looks like something we may build or would like to build, but currently cannot.

Since we are unlikely at this point to get a direct answer from Richard, I'll go ahead and answer the question.

OF COURSE we would think it was designed! We would not investigate as if this were just another meteorite, we'd investigate as if this object were designed. All without any independent evidence of the designer.

Now, it is important to recognize that science was not what led us to think this object was designed. We don't need to see the designer in action. We don't need to see the fabrication process, we don't need a message from the designer. We just need the object, and our critical thinking skills.

Those who insist that we need objective independent evidence of the designer in order to detect design are abandoning critical thinking and burdening their minds with the suffocating limitations of science.

Comment by chunkdz — June 3, 2010 @ 4:15 pm

ID guy Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Rich,

I am sorry to hear that you don't have any really close friends that you can collaborate with.

However if we use your "rational" then there must be only two-three evolutionists that visit these blogs and forums and all the rest are sock-puppets…

Comment by ID guy — June 3, 2010 @ 4:40 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 4:42 pm
I am sorry to hear that you don't have any really close friends that you can collaborate with.

Not 'share the same body' close..

Comment by Richardthughes — June 3, 2010 @ 4:42 pm

ID guy Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Hey chunkdz-

How does it feel to bang your head against the ~~Richardthughes~~, I mean wall?

Comment by ID guy — June 3, 2010 @ 4:44 pm

ID guy Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 4:46 pm
We don't share the same body- I am 5'10" and Joe is at least 6'. I am sure I outweigh him too.

And we don't even live in the same city.

Comment by ID guy — June 3, 2010 @ 4:46 pm

ID guy Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 4:50 pm
I shave my head and Joe is still holding out hope, I guess.

I have green eyes and Joe's are brown.

You will see all of this when we meet…

Comment by ID guy — June 3, 2010 @ 4:50 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Hey chunkdz-

How does it feel to bang your head against the ~~Richardthughes~~, I mean wall?

Be respectful.
Richard has just been diagnosed with terminal scientism.

Dr. Chunk has the cure.

Comment by chunkdz — June 3, 2010 @ 5:03 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 6:10 pm
WooWoo, I mean WooHoo. Auras and power crystals I hope!

Comment by Richardthughes — June 3, 2010 @ 6:10 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 6:11 pm
How did you two meet, ID Guy?

Comment by Richardthughes — June 3, 2010 @ 6:11 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 7:53 pm
WooWoo, I mean WooHoo. Auras and power crystals I hope!

I don't think you are ready. One has to desire to rid ones self of scientism.

However, you HAVE realized that you have a problem, which is the first step.

Comment by chunkdz — June 3, 2010 @ 7:53 pm

ID guy Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 8:50 pm
We met some time after I moved up to central mass from pennsylvannia- mid 80s'ish. He lived in the city next to my town. More to do there. most likely had some mutual friends.

I am sure a frisbee was involved, and a few other things I won't get into.

Comment by ID guy — June 3, 2010 @ 8:50 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Should I do an e-meter test?

Comment by Richardthughes — June 3, 2010 @ 9:43 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 9:55 pm
Should I do an e-meter test?

Step 1.) Admit to yourself that scientism has warped your perception.

Whenever you are ready.

Comment by chunkdz — June 3, 2010 @ 9:55 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:14 pm
How has it warped my perception?

Comment by Richardthughes — June 3, 2010 @ 10:14 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:51 pm
"seeing the designer, seeing reminants of the fabrication process, getting a message from the designer…"

You have limited your perception to match the limited perception of science. Classic symptom of CWSS.

There is a way out. Just because science is weak doesn't mean you have to be. Believe in yourself.

Comment by chunkdz — June 3, 2010 @ 10:51 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:58 pm
How many times have you done this procedure?

Comment by Richardthughes — June 3, 2010 @ 10:58 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Just say it. "Hi, my name is Richard, and I am a scientismist."

Comment by chunkdz — June 3, 2010 @ 11:03 pm

Bradford Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Richard Hughes and ID Guy, knock off the Joe G banter and stay on topic.

Comment by Bradford — June 3, 2010 @ 11:14 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Ah. This must be one of those faith things.

Comment by Richardthughes — June 3, 2010 @ 11:24 pm

Guts Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 11:44 pm
Richard, all your thetans are belong to us

Comment by Guts — June 3, 2010 @ 11:44 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 4th, 2010 at 12:33 am
Are there some things that seem to transcend urrent science – sure. Maybe science can't tell us, maybe it will.

Comment by Richardthughes — June 4, 2010 @ 12:33 am

Revere Says:
June 4th, 2010 at 5:03 am
Are there some things that seem to transcend [c]urrent science – sure. Maybe science can't tell us, maybe it will.

Science is telling us more and explaining more, every day. There is no other way of understanding that has generated so much genuine knowledge.

If you aren't doing science; you're making it up.

Comment by Revere — June 4, 2010 @ 5:03 am

fifth monarchy man Says:
June 4th, 2010 at 7:18 am
Richardthughes says

Are there some things that seem to transcend urrent science – sure. Maybe science can't tell us, maybe it will.

Richardthughes responds

Ah. This must be one of those faith things.

I could not have said it better

Being able to see the faith in others but not in yourself is what scientism is all about

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 4, 2010 @ 7:18 am

ID guy Says:
June 4th, 2010 at 7:55 am
My apologies Bradford.

Hughes got all flustered because he cannot support his position so he had to throw in the distraction of the day.

Comment by ID guy — June 4, 2010 @ 7:55 am

Richardthughes Says:
June 4th, 2010 at 9:47 am
FMM- I agree there is faith, but to lump it all together is a horrible equivocation.

http://dictionary.reference.co...

faith /feɪθ/ Show Spelled[feyth] Show IPA
–noun
1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6.the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7.the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8.Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom
9.in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

look at number 2 – I think 'proof' is a bit strong, evidence or track record might be better. And science has these in abundance.

Comment by Richardthughes — June 4, 2010 @ 9:47 am

chunkdz Says:
June 4th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Are there some things that seem to transcend urrent science – sure. Maybe science can't tell us, maybe it will.

Without independent objective evidence of the designer, science is impotent to detect design. It is impotent today, and it will be impotent tomorrow.

Your scientism is the reason that a highly advanced futuristic design could land in your back yard and you would not be able to tell that it is designed.

This is self imposed blindness. But it need not be so.

Comment by chunkdz — June 4, 2010 @ 1:28 pm

don provan Says:
June 4th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
chunkdz: Without independent objective evidence of the designer, science is impotent to detect design. It is impotent today, and it will be impotent tomorrow.

This is correct, although you've picked a loaded word. The neutral description is that science is an inappropriate tool for investigating something that has no possibility of independent objective evidence.

Your scientism is the reason that a highly advanced futuristic design could land in your back yard and you would not be able to tell that it is designed.

No, it's his ability to imagine all possibilities, including futuristic designs that we cannot recognize. Let's take a simple example: if a space faring dove landed in his backyard, we'd be faced with exactly the same designed/not designed quandary that we have with the terrestrial dove.

You blame his neutrality to his "scientism", but the problem here is that you are trying to have you cake and eat it, too: you keep trying to suggest it's designed without saying it's designed, and you're not presenting any details about it to determine whether we could or couldn't tell it's designed. Yet you're assuming that we could and would reach a conclusion of design. The only problem with science in this context is that it cannot deal with vacuous descriptions.

This is self imposed blindness. But it need not be so.

Please expand on the alternative. Take us through the probe landing in your backyard and how you would figure out whether or not it was designed. Not why you think it might be designed. Not why it looks designed. But how you could tell whether it actually and truly was designed.

Comment by don provan — June 4, 2010 @ 2:05 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 4th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Provan: This is correct, although you've picked a loaded word. The neutral description is that science is an inappropriate tool for investigating something that has no possibility of independent objective evidence.

Didn't say there was "no possibility". And 'impotent' is not a loaded word unless you are experiencing some personal health issues, Don.

No, it's his ability to imagine all possibilities, including futuristic designs that we cannot recognize. Let's take a simple example: if a space faring dove landed in his backyard, we'd be faced with exactly the same designed/not designed quandary that we have with the terrestrial dove.

I've acknowledged that some frame of reference is necessary. That's why I said the design looks futuristic.

Please expand on the alternative.

Critical thinking. Rationality, foresight, analogy, discontinuity.

Comment by chunkdz — June 4, 2010 @ 2:32 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 4th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Critical thinking. Rationality, foresight, analogy, discontinuity.

Vague notions!

Comment by Richardthughes — June 4, 2010 @ 3:37 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 4th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
richardthughes: Vague notions!

And yet, it's these "vague notions" which allow a normal person to see a futuristic design as design, while a scientismist like yourself sits in your own drool and cries "Show me the designer!"

It is these "vague notions" which allow a normal person to answer my questions openly while a scientismist like yourself feels the need to be evasive and obtuse.

Comment by chunkdz — June 4, 2010 @ 3:47 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 4th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Answer: Yes. Necessarily be correct: No.

Oh to sail on the magnificent canals of mars!

Comment by Richardthughes — June 4, 2010 @ 4:55 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 4th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Necessarily be correct: No.

Well, even scientists know that they are not necessarily correct. This shouldn't be disconcerting.

Closer inspection of Mars showed us that the canals were merely optical illusions.

But what if closer inspection reveals that the object in question is made of highly advanced software controlled nanoscale machines beyond our technological ability?

If they are designed then science is hoplessly blind to it.

Comment by chunkdz — June 4, 2010 @ 5:47 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
June 4th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
look at number 2 – I think 'proof' is a bit strong, evidence or track record might be better. And science has these in abundance.

My faith leans to number 1 trust in someone’s ability.

God had this in spades.

In fact I’d put God’s ability against science’s track record any day.

Oh to sail on the magnificent canals of mars!

A design inference like any position based on evidence is always tentative subject to defeating evidence.

If you are looking for certainty you might try philosophy.

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 4, 2010 @ 5:53 pm

Jared Jammer Says:
June 4th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Richardthughes wrote: Oh to sail on the magnificent canals of mars!

A great example of the falsifiability of the design inference. Well done Richard!

Comment by Jared Jammer — June 4, 2010 @ 6:04 pm

ID guy Says:
June 4th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
hughes:
look at number 2 – I think 'proof' is a bit strong, evidence or track record might be better. And science has these in abundance.

But your position doesn't.

Does that mean your position is scientific?

Comment by ID guy — June 4, 2010 @ 6:10 pm

don provan Says:
June 4th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
chunkdz: Didn't say there was "no possibility".

Oh. Then you're wrong: science is fine for develeoping theories which may later be confirmed. Does your probe have characteristics of that sort?

And 'impotent' is not a loaded word unless you are experiencing some personal health issues, Don.

"Impotent" implies a desire with an inability. Saying science is impotent here is like saying a screw driver is impotent was the goal is to drive a nail: I can understand the colorful language, but it isn't actually an accurate description.

I've acknowledged that some frame of reference is necessary. That's why I said the design looks futuristic.

Which is exactly why the answer you got was "it depends": not because of some preconception by the person answering, but because the question doesn't provide enough information.

Critical thinking. Rationality, foresight, analogy, discontinuity.

You'll have to be more specific. All that would be parts of any investigation.

Comment by don provan — June 4, 2010 @ 6:23 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 4th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Provan: Oh. Then you're wrong: science is fine for develeoping theories which may later be confirmed.

So is Star Trek.

"Impotent" implies a desire with an inability. Saying science is impotent here is like saying a screw driver is impotent was the goal is to drive a nail:

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Which is exactly why the answer you got was "it depends": not because of some preconception by the person answering, but because the question doesn't provide enough information.

Depends on what?

You'll have to be more specific. All that would be parts of any investigation.

Except a scientific one. Unless you happen to know of a scientific test for the rationality of a design.

Comment by chunkdz — June 4, 2010 @ 7:14 pm

don provan Says:
June 4th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
So is Star Trek.

Good for it.

Depends on what?

It depends on the details you are failing to provide.

Except a scientific one. Unless you happen to know of a scientific test for the rationality of a design.

No idea what you're saying here. Critical thinking. Rationality, foresight, analogy, and discontinuity could be parts of a scientific investigation. I do not see why you think science not having a "test for the rationality of a design", whatever that means, contradicts me when I say all you've done is listed parts of any investigation, scientific or otherwise.

Comment by don provan — June 4, 2010 @ 8:38 pm

chunkdz Says:
June 4th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Provan: It depends on the details you are failing to provide.

Ok. Let me ask you a similar question. What details, if any, would lead you to you think that life was designed?

No idea what you're saying here. Critical thinking. Rationality, foresight, analogy, and discontinuity could be parts of a scientific investigation. I do not see why you think science not having a "test for the rationality of a design", whatever that means, contradicts me when I say all you've done is listed parts of any investigation, scientific or otherwise.

How do you measure rationality? What's the empirical unit of measurement for foresight?

Can you form a falsifiable hypothesis to test for either?

What would you use as a control?

Where's the science, Don?

Comment by chunkdz — June 4, 2010 @ 9:17 pm

Daniel Smith Says:
June 4th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Don Provan: The only problem with science in this context is that it cannot deal with vacuous descriptions.

Science is OPINION – supported by empirical evidence. Nothing more.

I'm of the opinion that life is designed. Does the empirical evidence support that opinion? Sure it does.

Lets move on.

Comment by Daniel Smith — June 4, 2010 @ 9:22 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 5th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
But your position doesn't.

Does that mean your position is scientific?

Yes, Joe. Evolution whishes it has ID's predictive track record.

Comment by Richardthughes — June 5, 2010 @ 12:00 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 5th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
A great example of the falsifiability of the design inference. Well done Richard!

Yay! we assume stuff's designed until we find out it isn't.

Comment by Richardthughes — June 5, 2010 @ 12:01 pm

Bradford Says:
June 5th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
A great example of the falsifiability of the design inference. Well done Richard!

RTH: Yay! we assume stuff's designed until we find out it isn't.

That's a more revealing comment than you realize. At most, what you can accurately state, based on your knowledge, is that there is no overt evidence of design. Unless you are able to trace a detailed causal trail accounting for the finely tuned universe we find ourselves part of, you simply do not know either way. You're free to draw on atheist assumptions of origin but then, as many of us have been pointing out, it's a matter of your choice of faith.

Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2010 @ 12:13 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 5th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Or I could say "I don't know if it is or isn't designed, but I don't think design should have the privileged default position".

Comment by Richardthughes — June 5, 2010 @ 12:20 pm

ID guy Says:
June 5th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Hughes:
Evolution whishes it has ID's predictive track record.

1- Evolution isn't being debated

2- Your position doesn't any predictions based on the proposed mechanisms

3- It is very clear that you cannot provide a testable hypothesis for your position

Comment by ID guy — June 5, 2010 @ 1:46 pm

ID guy Says:
June 5th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Hughes:
Yay! we assume stuff's designed until we find out it isn't.

Except the explanatory filter mandates the opposite.

Do you really think your mindless flailings can refute ID?

Comment by ID guy — June 5, 2010 @ 1:48 pm

ID guy Says:
June 5th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
hughes:
Or I could say "I don't know if it is or isn't designed, but I don't think design should have the privileged default position".

According to the EF it isn't the default position.

IOW the trolling sock-puppet doesn't know anything and thinks he can challenge ID with that ignorance.

Comment by ID guy — June 5, 2010 @ 1:50 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 6th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Sorry Joe, but they way it works is design is a catch-all if you can't prove other things. There is no "I don't know" in the EF.

Comment by Richardthughes — June 6, 2010 @ 1:49 pm

Richardthughes Says:
June 6th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
1- Evolution isn't being debated

The ID camp isn't sold on evolution.

Comment by Richardthughes — June 6, 2010 @ 1:57 pm

eric Says:
June 6th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Richardthughes: "Sorry Joe, but they way it works is design is a catch-all if you can't prove other things. There is no "I don't know" in the EF."

On the contrary, one must have a reasonable basis for excluding or ruling out the other things as not reasonable explanations in order to advance to a design inference. The "I don't know" would occur for cases where there was not yet any basis for either excluding or confirming law or chance explanations.

Keep in mind that this is science, not math, and that we are not talking about "proofs". However, we do expect to be swayed by accumulated evidence and reasoning toward tentative inferences — unless and until new evidence shows otherwise.

Comment by eric — June 6, 2010 @ 3:42 pm

eric Says:
June 6th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Richardthughes, if you would like the illustration of a historic example, origin of life researcher Dean Kenyon at one time thought a Law+Chance explanation would account for the origin of life. He even authored a well regarded textbook advancing his perspective and proposed solution.

Later, as evidence mounted and other considerations came into view (e.g. the issue of symbolic information stored in DNA), it became apparent to him that neither his own Law+Chance proposal nor any others were addressing the situation.

It was when Law and Chance were reasonably ruled out as sufficient sources for the origin of life that his perspective changed and he advanced to a design inference.

It is appropriate for other researchers to likewise begin by default assuming that Law and Chance might potentially due the job. If they find that path unworkable and unreasonable in light of the evidence, it is also appropriate for them to advance to a design inference.

Comment by eric — June 6, 2010 @ 3:52 pm

ID guy Says:
June 6th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
troll:
but they way it works is design is a catch-all if you can't prove other things. There is no "I don't know" in the EF.

You don't know how it works.

You are just an ignorant troll.

1- Evolution isn't being debated

troll:
The ID camp isn't sold on evolution.

They all accept this:

What Is Evolution?

IOW your ignorance is meaningless here troll…

Comment by ID guy — June 6, 2010 @ 4:57 pm

ID guy Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 7:36 am
So that's it?

Hughes gets his ignorance exposed and moves on to pollute another thread.

Comment by ID guy — June 7, 2010 @ 7:36 am

Richardthughes Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 8:33 am
Tell you what boys, how about we invert the EF and say if we can't see it being designed, must be law + chance?

Comment by Richardthughes — June 7, 2010 @ 8:33 am

Richardthughes Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 8:34 am
No they don't all accept evolution. Some are amenable to special creation.

Comment by Richardthughes — June 7, 2010 @ 8:34 am

ID guy Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 8:42 am
troll:
Tell you what boys, how about we invert the EF and say if we can't see it being designed, must be law + chance?

That has nothing to do with inverting the EF.

The EF is already in favor of your position- it gives your position the first opportunities to produce the result.

No they don't all accept evolution.

All IDists accept evolution in the sense that evolutionary biologist larry moran has defined it.

What definition of "evolution" are you using?

Please provide a valid reference for it or admit you don't know what you are talking about.

Comment by ID guy — June 7, 2010 @ 8:42 am

ID guy Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 8:43 am
And BTW if you need to see it being designed then you ain't interested in science- but we all knew that already…

Comment by ID guy — June 7, 2010 @ 8:43 am

Richardthughes Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 8:57 am
Joe here's a clue, take it or leave it. When you don't know, then the catch all is "I don't know' – you can't have the answer that comports to your personal religious bias there instead.

Where is "I don't know" in the EF?

Comment by Richardthughes — June 7, 2010 @ 8:57 am

Richardthughes Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 9:01 am
Johnny T. Helms' concerns about my book THE END OF CHRISTIANITY as well as his concerns about my role as a seminary professor in the SBC are unfounded. I subscribe to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as well as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. I believe Adam and Eve were literal historical persons specially created by God. I am not, as he claims, a theistic evolutionist. Within the Southern Baptist seminaries, both old-earth and young-earth creationism are accepted positions. True, young-earth creationism remains the majority view in the SBC, but it is not a litmus test for Christian orthodoxy within the SBC. I'm an old-earth creationist and the two SBC seminaries at which I've taught (Southern in Louisville and Southwestern in Ft. Worth) both were fully apprised of my views here in hiring me.

William Dembski

Comment by Richardthughes — June 7, 2010 @ 9:01 am

ID guy Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 9:03 am
troll,

Where's the "I don't know?" in your position?

Do chimps and humans share a common ancestor? Honest answer- "We don't know".

Here is a clue for you-

With the EF if we don't know then it stays in the box until we can work it out.

There isn't anyting in any decision box that is pushing for an answer.

It stays in the box until we make a determination.

That is where we don't know is…

Comment by ID guy — June 7, 2010 @ 9:03 am

Richardthughes Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 9:07 am
Do chimps and humans share a common ancestor? Honest answer- "We don't know".

Well let's see. ERV's would be evidence for common ancestry. Morphology is very similar. Chromosomal fusion event.. both have broken vitamin C gene…

Comment by Richardthughes — June 7, 2010 @ 9:07 am

ID guy Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 9:17 am
ERV's would be evidence for common ancestry.

How do you know?

Morphology is very similar.

Convergence and common design

both have broken vitamin C gene…

And why would that be selected for?

Comment by ID guy — June 7, 2010 @ 9:17 am

ID guy Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 9:18 am
And what was the purpose for quoting Dembski?

Even baraminolgu accepts that populations change over time- ie evolution.

And why haven't you provided a definition of evolution?

What are you hiding?

Comment by ID guy — June 7, 2010 @ 9:18 am

ID guy Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 9:20 am
Chromosomal fusion- why was that selected for?

Could it be the fusion is a design feature to prevent cross-breeding?

Take the fusion plus the differences in Y chromosomes and no interbreeding.

Comment by ID guy — June 7, 2010 @ 9:20 am

ID guy Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 9:22 am
making sure the troll understands this:

Here is a clue for you-

With the EF if we don't know then it stays in the box until we can work it out.

There isn't anyting in any decision box that is pushing for an answer.

It stays in the box until we make a determination.

That is where we don't know is…

Do you understand that? yes or no

Comment by ID guy — June 7, 2010 @ 9:22 am

Richardthughes Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 9:29 am
but wait Joe, the EF works by ruling things out to leave with you with design. Can you rule out chance and law (know)?

Comment by Richardthughes — June 7, 2010 @ 9:29 am

Richardthughes Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 9:30 am
How do you know?

Because we understand them, how they work, how they propagated to our distant cousins, how they for a nested hierarchy…

Comment by Richardthughes — June 7, 2010 @ 9:30 am

ID guy Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 9:52 am
troll:
the EF works by ruling things out to leave with you with design.

That is incorrect.

Before you reach the design inference not only must chance and necessity be eliminated a specification must be met- two criteria.

Can you rule out chance and law (know)?

Where did law come from?

Comment by ID guy — June 7, 2010 @ 9:52 am

ID guy Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 9:57 am
How do you know?

Because we understand them, how they work, how they propagated to our distant cousins,

No one has ever observed an ERV get inserted into one individual's gamete and then get passed on until it can be found on both sets of chromosomes- ie fixed.

Do you even understand the scenario that would have had to have played out in order for the ERV argument to have any merit?

Or are you just blindly and mindlessly parroting the party line- again?

how they for a nested hierarchy…

How are you defining "nested hierarchy"?

Comment by ID guy — June 7, 2010 @ 9:57 am

ID guy Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 9:57 am
With the EF if we don't know then it stays in the box until we can work it out.

There isn't anyting in any decision box that is pushing for an answer.

It stays in the box until we make a determination.

That is where we don't know is…

Do you understand that? yes or no

Comment by ID guy — June 7, 2010 @ 9:57 am

Richardthughes Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 10:05 am
Before you reach the design inference not only must chance and necessity be eliminated a specification must be met- two criteria.

So it works if your ominscient. usefull!

http://www.frankston.com/publi...

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930), English author. Sherlock Holmes, in The Sign of Four, ch. 6 (1889).

…

There are two basic fallacies. One is that you've truly eliminated other choices as being impossible and secondly that you've enumerated all of the possibilities.

But it is very wrong. Given this view it should be no surprise that Doyle was a spiritualist and an easy target for scams.

Comment by Richardthughes — June 7, 2010 @ 10:05 am

Richardthughes Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 10:05 am
With the EF if we don't know then it stays in the box until we can work it out.

Souce?

Comment by Richardthughes — June 7, 2010 @ 10:05 am

ID guy Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 10:18 am
With the EF if we don't know then it stays in the box until we can work it out.

There isn't anyting in any decision box that is pushing for an answer.

It stays in the box until we make a determination.

That is where we don't know is…

Souce?

That is how flowcharts work.

Until you make a decision nothing comes out of the decision box.

Comment by ID guy — June 7, 2010 @ 10:18 am

ID guy Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Before you reach the design inference not only must chance and necessity be eliminated a specification must be met- two criteria.

So it works if your ominscient. usefull

It works if you can conduct a proper investigation.

IOW it will never work for you.

Comment by ID guy — June 7, 2010 @ 10:19 am

ID guy Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Still waiting on that definition of evolution…

Comment by ID guy — June 7, 2010 @ 10:19 am

Richardthughes Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 10:20 am
It works if you can conduct a proper investigation.

can you point me to a good example with numbers?

Comment by Richardthughes — June 7, 2010 @ 10:20 am

ID guy Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 11:05 am
It works if you can conduct a proper investigation.

can you point me to a good example with numbers?

Can you phrase that in intelligible form?

Comment by ID guy — June 7, 2010 @ 11:05 am

ID guy Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 11:07 am
And how about that definition of evolution?

Are you ever going to present one or are you ready to admit that you were wrong?

Comment by ID guy — June 7, 2010 @ 11:07 am

Richardthughes Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 11:19 am
I'd like to see a fully worked out example of the EF with all of the math done. We can even start with something we know is designed, like a cake.

Comment by Richardthughes — June 7, 2010 @ 11:19 am

ID guy Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 11:30 am
I'd like to see a fully worked out example of the EF with all of the math done.

I'd like to see a fully worked out example of evolution with all of the math done.

However you don't seem to be able to provide a valdid definition of "evolution".

Is that so you can deceive people?

Comment by ID guy — June 7, 2010 @ 11:30 am

Richardthughes Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 11:44 am
here:

http://web.mac.com/redifiori/R...

Idists, I've already got your quote for you:

Fine tuning of mutation rates

Comment by Richardthughes — June 7, 2010 @ 11:44 am

ID guy Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 11:47 am
Are you saying that evolutionary math only works with baraminology?

Do you have anything that relates to something other than slight variations?

Comment by ID guy — June 7, 2010 @ 11:47 am

ID guy Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 11:50 am
Are you also saying that your definition of "evolution" is nothing more than change in allele frequency within a population?

Comment by ID guy — June 7, 2010 @ 11:50 am

Richardthughes Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 11:51 am
Evolution is stochastic, Joe. Design isn't.

Comment by Richardthughes — June 7, 2010 @ 11:51 am

ID guy Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
troll:
Evolution is stochastic

That is what is being debated.

You don't seem to be able to provide any positive evidence for that claim.

Comment by ID guy — June 7, 2010 @ 4:16 pm

ID guy Says:
June 8th, 2010 at 7:40 am
Still waiting for that definition of evolution…

Comment by ID guy — June 8, 2010 @ 7:40 am

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Loose Explanations

176 Responses to “Loose Explanations”

Leave a Reply

Featured Books