|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3833 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
We show the credence of the premise by showing that things with information require designers. The only things we find with information in them are designed, which is not begging the question. Yes it is. It's assuming that they did not evolve instead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
If something has information, it has been put there by something mindful, an intelligent agency. (which self-evidently follows) You see, you're doing it again. It only "self-evidently follows" if you deny that the information was put there by evolution, which is what we're arguing about. Now another problem that this argument has is that it is false whenever we look at any particular bit of biological information. If we look at (for example) a rosebush, then we find that the information in it was produced by two other rosebushes mindlessly having sex. The argument from design rests on supposing that there was once an exception to this universally observed rule, and that at some point a rosebush was produced in the same sort of way that (for example) a CD was produced, rather than in the way that every rosebush we've ever seen was produced. The Argument From Design is not an inference from observation, because it involves fantasizing without evidence that a regularity in nature that we never see being broken was at some point broken.
Afterall that's why the evolutionist contingency have to cast doubts upon it being information. (You should read the book, called; In the Beginning was Information By Werner Gitt, to get a better understanding of the fullness of the argument from information. I have read Werner Gitt, and the words "fucking moron" are really the politest terms that I can think of to describe him. But if you want to discuss his nonsense, maybe this should be taken to another thread. There may already be one on which we could discuss this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
The only things we find with information in them are designed, which is not begging the question. That is the perfect example of begging the question. Your premise is your conclusion. You are trying to find out if everything with information was designed. You can't start out with the premise that everything with information was designed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
By the way, the distraction did not work, you said that we are arguing that if something is designed it has information, and therefore I would be stating that a sculpture has coded information. I am arguing that you are committing a logical fallacy, which you are. The topic of this thread is logical fallacies and examples of them in the evo v. creo debate. You have supplied numerous examples thus far.
You have changed the goal posts, because I shown that the argument from information does not have the form you stated it had. Yes, it does. 1. If life is designed then it will have information.2. Life has information. 3. Therefore, life is designed. That is Affirming the Consequent. If you want to rearrange the the first premise, then you have to actually support the premise. "If something has information, then it is designed" We would rightly challenge this premise and require you to support it. Simply claiming that it is self evidence in no way settles the dispute. In fact, "It is self evident" is a fallacy unto its own, namely the Appeal to Common Sense: Appeal to tradition - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2
|
The only things we find with information in them are designed, False. Blood spatter carries enough information just from the pattern it makes on a surface to allow us to determine all manner of facts like the distance the victim was from the surface, directionality, number of strikes, etc. Blood spatter is not designed, ergo your statement is false. Pond water carries large amounts of information that tells us things like the level of pollution, its suitability for various forms of aquatic life, etc. Pond water is not designed, ergo your statement is false. Rock carries significant amounts of information that allows us to determine its age, the presence or absence of water or volcanism in an area in the past, etc. Rocks are not designed, ergo your statement is false. The light from a star contains information that allows us to determine its chemical makeup, mass, and life cycle stage. Stars are not designed, ergo your statement is false. Shall I continue? Information is everywhere, and the vast majority is not from any designer.The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
I am arguing that you are committing a logical fallacy, which you are. The topic of this thread is logical fallacies and examples of them in the evo v. creo debate. You have supplied numerous examples thus far. No, that's not correct. To state that if something has information then it requires a designer, is what must be stated in order to prove it. It's how the induction is then observed that supports the proposition. I am not assuming there is design, we are observing the information which abundantly allows us to infer design. Sure - we already believe in a designer, but that's got nothing to do with it.
If life is designed then it will have information. That is YOUR strawman statement. I would not argue that life is designed therefore it has information. You have now changed YOUR original statement which was what I originally replied to in this thread, which was; TAQ said;
Taq writes: As it is used by ID/Creationists: 1. If something is designed then it will have coded information.2. Life has coded information. 3. Therefore, life is designed. If I was arguing that something designed had coded information, I would be stating that a sculpture has coded information. Nobody arguing information would argue that. I have never heard one Creationist argue your strawman fallacy.
If you want to rearrange the the first premise, then you have to actually support the premise. Ofcourse. But I never argued anything, I only gave a counter-claim that IDists and creationists do not argue that design = coded information. Your fallacy was one of composition. You stated something about Creationists/IDists generally that you not even proved in the first place, as you have not SHOWN that a creationist or IDist has said that sculptures have coded information. I used reductio ad absurdum upon your original statement, because if your form of argument about information was true, then I could be able to find Creationists and IDists that state that if there is design, there is coded-information, such as a sculpture having coded information. To prove the argument from information uses this reasoning, the burden of proof is upon you to show that we state that all designs will have coded information. I myself have done nothing, I responded to an argument, a strawman you aimed at me and all creationists, I have not done anything other than correct the mistaken form you provided. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given. Edited by mike the wiz, : Neatness, grammar,etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Mike,
The syllogism may be valid but if the premises are not true then neither is the conclusion. If P then QP Therefore, Q That's a valid syllogism, but you can't fill in just anything you like for P and Q and expect the conclusion to be true. An example: If pigs are pink then pigs can flyPigs are pink Therefore, pigs can fly. You state that if something contains information then it must have been put there by an intelligent agent. Others have already shown that this premise is false. So, even if your syllogism is valid, the conclusion you get from it is not true."Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
It does not make my statement false because I believe you have conflated/equivocated with the term, "information", in this example. I would say you are describing what thoughtful people can INFER or extrapolate from facts. There is no information within and in the rock itself of the type Creationists/ID ists are talking about.
For example, writing, is information. I believe the definition of information we use would not incorporate such crude examples. What is information? I would say that the inferences a mindful person gleans from facts is the information,(but I haven't thought it out in depth as that was not my motive here) rather than the facts themselves otherwise logically, we would not have to INFER anything. If we don't understand a code it is still a code, but with blood spatter, it does not give us direct information, if we do not infer it. From the definition of information used by Dr Werner Gitt for example, code is incorporated. I would say your examples are examples of vacuous truths. A vacuous truth has not merit even though it is true. For example; "If I was superman I would fly to the moon." But I think it is silly that an admin has not stopped the excessive demands upon me for merely making one opinion, which was logical, concerning the false strawman form aimed at people such as me. I think by default everyone's comments should be deemed as automatically incorrect because they are using this topic to try and make me defend design.
I did not argue information, I only stated that it was falsely represented. I was correct. As to whether any theory or argument from information is brilliant, or poor - is irrelevant to the point I was making. I was only making an observation. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
I agree with you Para. It's a shame that even someone such as yourself did not recognize that I was not arguing for information. I was not making a defense of the argument from information, I was making a logical statement as to what that argument is NOT. The topic is about logic, which interests me academically, as for a syllogism or conditional implication having to back up it's premises, that is elemental and I find it genuinely remarkable that you think I would not know that.
A fallacy is a fallacy IF the form is not valid, or the premise is not true or the premise is potentially not true. A potential non sequitur is the problem.
You state that if something contains information then it must have been put there by an intelligent agent I would argue that, but I was not arguing that here. I was arguing that the form of the argument from information was not the form Taq said it was, because I shown reductio ad absurdum. If Taq was right, Creationists would have to argue that artwork and sculptures have coded information within them. Which is ludicrous, I have never heard of informed Creationists making such an error, THEREFORE Taq is not right. (Reductio ad absurdum) I DID NOT give a definition for information, therefore to "refute" what I meant by information without knowing what I specifically WOULD mean if I were arguing it, is a strawman people have erected in order to shoot down. All I said in this thread was what we do NOT argue, not what we do argue. If you are honest with yourself, you would re-read everything I have stated without jumping to any conclusions about what you think I MAY be saying. This is the prime element of logical thinking, to isolate information in the strictest, most objective possible manner. I would be happy to give OPINIONS about the argument from information, but be under no delusions, I have not given any lengthy claims or counter claims to any proposals here in this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
MTW writes: Which moves us nicely into the various fallacies of definition:
It does not make my statement false because I believe you have conflated/equivocated with the term, "information", in this example. I would say you are describing what thoughtful people can INFER or extrapolate from facts. There is no information within and in the rock itself of the type Creationists/ID ists are talking about. For example, writing, is information. I believe the definition of information we use would not incorporate such crude examples. What is information? I would say that the inferences a mindful person gleans from facts is the information,(but I haven't thought it out in depth as that was not my motive here) rather than the facts themselves otherwise logically, we would not have to INFER anything.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition quote: If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
To state that if something has information then it requires a designer, is what must be stated in order to prove it.
You don't prove something by simply stating that it is true. The point of a logical argument is to show that the conclusion follows from the premises. You can't do that if you insert your conclusion in the premises. It defeats the whole purpose.
I am not assuming there is design, we are observing the information which abundantly allows us to infer design. It is assumed in the premises when you state that everything with information is designed.
Your fallacy was one of composition. You stated something about Creationists/IDists generally that you not even proved in the first place, as you have not SHOWN that a creationist or IDist has said that sculptures have coded information. Where did I mention sculptures in any of my posts?
I used reductio ad absurdum upon your original statement, because if your form of argument about information was true, then I could be able to find Creationists and IDists that state that if there is design, there is coded-information, such as a sculpture having coded information. As long as IDers do not use the argument as I detailed above then they are fine. If they reparse the argument so that they are affirming the antecedent, which is allowable, then their premise is open to challenge. Take your pick.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
Can you show me where I said I would defend the information-argument to the hilt? my objective was to say what it was not.
It's a fair comment to say that the definition might in itself be problematic. I must confess that I am a little rusty, personally, upon the exact definition, but I believe it definitely had merit, as it seems to tally with reality. Again, you can't see me here as the great defender of the information argument, I can only guide you as personally I do not value it to a magnificent degree. Indeed, only now am I musing upon it because of all of the drama caused by my statement. I believe the essentials, and this is a very vague explanation, from foggy memory, is that for something to qualify as a full and meaningul term as "information" and for it not to be special pleading we have to show that we are dealing with the very sophisticated. So to fully describe what writing is, for example, you need; 1. Code. Syntax. (It has to have a meaningful code)2. Pragmatics. There has to be meaning to the code. For example; And did they you, fat evo. No meaning you see, dear chap, only syntax and code. Then, you have to achieve what the information sets out to achieve. In this case, namely making sense to a recipient. The examples given such as blood spatter being information etc.....that is a bit of an equivocation, a superbly simplistic example of what we are talking about. For if we are trying to describe the reality of what writing is, these definition describe it's information in a very clear way. But if writing was just information, as blood spatter was, then the definition would fully meet that of what it is to describe what writing FULLY is. I believe it is reasonable therefore, to provide a definition. Writing is the kind of information that exists in reality, which such a definition fully described. Therefore writing would have to NOT be what we are stating it to be within our definition. These are my preliminary and unformed thoughts in regards to the objections to what can described to at best, as my initial allusions. But they weren't even allusions, I did say at best!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
1. Code. Syntax. (It has to have a meaningful code) 2. Pragmatics. There has to be meaning to the code. Well, if you insist, but you must be aware then that these aren't present in DNA; they're present only in our representations ("ATGC") of DNA. DNA doesn't actually contain letters; it contains chemical structures that we describe with letters. It doesn't contain "syntax", our representations of it do. DNA no more has syntax than a snowflake encodes the number "6". DNA isn't a "code", we represent it as a code. What DNA is is a chemical structure that, when it reacts with another chemical structure, produces a third chemical structure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Mike, you could have fooled me. Your first post in this thread certainly has some elements that make it seem that you, apart from attempting to teach us logic, also argue for design.
Exhibit A: the self-evidence clauseExhibit B: the advertisement for the Gitt book Exhibit C: the complaint about other accusations against creationists. Like a typical creationist argument, yours goes all over the place, but it's exhibit B that clinched it for me. You believe in the false premise. Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given."Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
To state that you did not use the word, "sculptures" is a moot point. It shows that you did not understand what I was saying.
If you say that I am claiming that all animals wear clothes, then if you are an animal, you wear clothes, then it follows logically that I would be arguing that a Cheetah wears clothes. Now although you did not mention the animal called, "Cheetah", is irrelevant and a moot point BECAUSE if FOLLOWS that I would HAVE TO state and propose that such animals did wear clothes. Now we are discussing logic, which is the topic and which I enjoy. You see, logical fallacies only tell us what is not sound, but the true joy is when we can infer what is sound, and what we can deduce. In this example I am using logical thinking to show what is called reductio ad absurdum, which takes the following form; X state that Bob is saying Y. Bob states that if he was stating Y then absurd thing P would be true. Since absurd thing P is false, X is incorrect.
As long as IDers do not use the argument as I detailed above then they are fine. If they reparse the argument so that they are affirming the antecedent, which is allowable, then their premise is open to challenge. Take your pick. Again I must actually USE logic. This is an example of a false dichotomy. A. I use the form of argument you presented, which I never claimed to present.B. I can re-form the argument I never did use to submit another type of argument? I think I will take option C. I will state what I have always stated, that the argument from information does not take the form you said it did. You are saying that Creationists argue P, which they don't, I have shown they argue Y, and now you want me to say that I am changing the argument P we never argued and I am going to create a new argument which is argument Y which involves altering the argument we never argued. Sheesh. Taq, I will concede one point, there may be creationists that argue that all designs have coded information, I can only state that I have never met one. I have never read on AIG or other creation websites, Creationists stating that sculptures have coded information in them. I apreciate that you think this is true. Really you need to admit that the form of the syllogism is that of a conditional implication. IF information THEN design. This in itself is a modus ponen which is allowed to be used in an argument, as long as you don't affirm the consequent. The antecedant to the consequent inference is valid as long as you evidence the proposal.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024