Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there a legitimate argument for design?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 475 of 638 (736976)
09-15-2014 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 472 by NoNukes
09-15-2014 10:42 AM


Re: why is the sky blue?
Yeah, I do get it.
Perhaps you meant to ask that question, but I don't see that you did.
Correct, it wasn't what I asked, what I asked was the why question.
Why Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote:
why adverb
1. for what? for what reason, cause, or purpose?:
Science tries to explain objective phenomena and make testable predictions about them. If you can't make testable predictions then you cannot do science.
... But even if we cannot make a deterministic evaluation, we can still do what we can. That is for example what we do when we analyze the properties of gases using statistical analysis, or when we study atoms using quantum mechanics.
Which means you are guessing about the (average) causal forces, and the difference here is that you can test those guesses against gases and quantum mechanics ... and this goes to explain\understanding how the gases and quantum mechanics behave ... not why.
How do you test a guess about a subjective feeling?
Message 469: Why is the sky blue?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by NoNukes, posted 09-15-2014 10:42 AM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-15-2014 12:06 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 502 of 638 (737042)
09-16-2014 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 476 by New Cat's Eye
09-15-2014 12:06 PM


Re: why is the sky blue?
Why do things fall downward instead of upward?
Gravity is how things are attracted, but why is there gravity?
Why does candy taste sweet?
Sugar is how candy tastes sweet, but why is there sugar?
Why does my back hurt?
Strained muscles and nerve impulses are how your back aches, but why do they exist?
Why do you say that science cannot answer why-questions?
Science explains how, not why the two year old in the back seat keeps asking why questions.
Why is subjective, how is objective.
If you're simply pointing out that science is unable to identify any purpose behind the way things are, then you're just begging the question of having any need to identify a purpose in the first place.
Ooo how about poison the well fallacy?
Or I'm just pointing out that science cannot answer those questions.
Why is the sky blue?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-15-2014 12:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 516 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-16-2014 5:07 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 523 by NoNukes, posted 09-17-2014 2:18 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 503 of 638 (737043)
09-16-2014 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 480 by Dr Adequate
09-15-2014 1:51 PM


Re: first you make a star with hydrogen ...
But God could.
I'm not arguing against the standard model.
And if god/s do it by using the standard model? -- that is the thesis presented here ...
Put another way -- would not the "standard model" reflect how god/s created the universe no matter how they actually did it? If the universe worked a different way, would that not be incorporated into the study of that universe, built into the "standard model" there?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : added P

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 480 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-15-2014 1:51 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 518 of 638 (737080)
09-16-2014 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 516 by New Cat's Eye
09-16-2014 5:07 PM


Re: why is the sky blue?
Gravity is how things are attracted, but why is there gravity?
Because mass bends spacetime.
That is how they are attracted. Why does mass bend spacetime?
Sugar is how candy tastes sweet, but why is there sugar?
Carbohydrates perfrom all kinds of functions for living organisms.
That explains how sugars are used, it doesn't explain why they are sweet.
Strained muscles and nerve impulses are how your back aches, but why do they exist?
That a long and complicated answer, but muscles and nerve impulses evolved from ecological advantages.
That is how they came to be, it doesn't explain why they did.
Why is subjective, how is objective.
Not necessarily. Many times, the answer to "why" is just a question of "how".
Then you are confusing the terms or committing an equivocation fallacy
Why is the sky blue?
Because the atmosphere refracts all the wavelengths of light outside of the blue spectrum.
That explains how the sky is blue but not why it is blue.
See? Each of those questions is scientifically answerable.
Each of those answers involve how not why.
But, what you are trying to say, is that science cannot answer the purpose of those things.
And sure, it can't. But all you're doing is Begging the Question. ...
Is it begging the question to use the definition of why?
Ooo how about poison the well fallacy?
That's not what poisoning the well is...
Poisoning the well is a preemptive attempt to rule out an argument that is valid, and here would be claiming that I can't use the definition of why when the difference between why and how clearly lies in the proper use of the words with the definitions of their use.
quote:
Why
adverb
1. for what? for what reason, cause, or purpose?:
Why did you behave so badly?
How
adverb
1. in what way or manner; by what means?:
How did the accident happen?
Using words properly helps assure good communication. Using words to mean different things than the other person means is a way to assure bad communication (for example Faith's definitions and meanings rather than scientific ones)
... If there is no purpose in the first place, then its no wonder that science cannot find it.
Or if the purpose cannot be determined.
Even if Picasso said he painted the face blue because he felt like it, that does not answer the question, because now you would have to ask why did he feel like it ... especially when he has used other colors on other occasions presumably because he felt like it: feeling like it has no predictive, and thus no testable, aspect, which means it cannot be investigated by science.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 516 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-16-2014 5:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 534 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-17-2014 11:16 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 556 by Omnivorous, posted 09-17-2014 9:04 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 519 of 638 (737081)
09-16-2014 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 517 by taiji2
09-16-2014 5:19 PM


Re: The Tao
I had composed a more lengthy response but the server went down before I posted.
Compose replies in a text editor (like notepad) and you won't lose it, plus you can keep it alongside the post you are replying to and avoid paging up and down from the reply window to the post you are replying to.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 5:19 PM taiji2 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 526 of 638 (737101)
09-17-2014 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 523 by NoNukes
09-17-2014 2:18 AM


Re: why is the sky blue?
... Of course there are some non scientific question using the word why. ...
A good starting point: there are lots of questions science can't answer (where this discussion started) ... how can you characterize them?
If you ask why Picasso shaped a persons nose as he did, a perfectly good answer to that question would be wanted to provoke reaction X.
So why did he (hypothetically) want to provoke that reaction?
As for why sugar exists, who says there is a reason. Why is not "sugar exists because plants evolved to produce it as a means of storing energy" (accompanied by some biology re: evolution and natural selection) a suitable answer? ...
Because that is how it came to exist - you are answering a how question not the why question. You can see this if you say ...
... is not "sugar exists because plants evolved to produce it as a means of storing energy" (accompanied by some biology re: evolution and natural selection) ... a suitable answer to the question for how sugar exists?
If you replace why with how and your answer is the same then you have answered the how question and not the why one.
If you want to ask a question that science cannot answer, simply using a why does not cut it. You cannot demonstrate that one why question is not scientific by asking different ones as you do here.
Science explains how the universe works. It does not explain why it works.
Why is the sky blue?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by NoNukes, posted 09-17-2014 2:18 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 527 by NoNukes, posted 09-17-2014 9:18 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 612 of 638 (737306)
09-22-2014 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 527 by NoNukes
09-17-2014 9:18 AM


Re: why is the sky blue?
Your classification of questions into how and why is nonsense. I suspect that all answers to why questions can be recast as mere hows to a different question.
Or the same question with 'how' instead of 'why' -- you should try it and see if it clears up your argument a little. For instance take this answer:
Why is the sky blue?
Here is a why answer for you.
The sky on planets through ought the universe is of various color, but the particular molecules within our atmosphere refract light and produce a blue color. And you could only evolve on a planet with a similar atmosphere. So your sky is blue. Alien X's sky is purple.
Or another answer. The sky is not blue. In fact all of the major gasses in our atmosphere are transparent to light. What you see and call blue is scattered light, and is just an optical illusion.
and apply it to the question: How is the sky blue?
The sky on planets through ought the universe is of various color, but the particular molecules within our atmosphere refract light and produce a blue color. And you could only evolve on a planet with a similar atmosphere. So your sky is blue. Alien X's sky is purple.
Or another answer. The sky is not blue. In fact all of the major gasses in our atmosphere are transparent to light. What you see and call blue is scattered light, and is just an optical illusion.
Same answer. Now ask yourself which word - 'how' or 'why' - best describes the question that is answered?
To rephrase the sky question: why is (life, the universe etc arranged so that) the sky is (or appears to be) blue? why isn't (life, the universe etc arranged so that) the sky is (or appears to be) green?
because it was designed that way
because the universe just happened to self-arrange that way
I don't know
some other answer may be possible at a later date
Do any of these answers provide testable predictions?
Or why does atom #12323433 in a sample of U-238 decay at time t? There is no reason why it does that.
Agreed. And we can ask how does atom #12323433 in a sample of U-238 decay ... and we can provide an answer to that question.
Would you agree that how atom #12323433 decays is testable while why atom #12323433 decays is not?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 527 by NoNukes, posted 09-17-2014 9:18 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 613 by NoNukes, posted 09-22-2014 9:18 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 614 of 638 (737329)
09-22-2014 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 556 by Omnivorous
09-17-2014 9:04 PM


why was the face painted blue?
RAZD writes:
Even if Picasso said he painted the face blue because he felt like it, that does not answer the question, because now you would have to ask why did he feel like it ... especially when he has used other colors on other occasions presumably because he felt like it: feeling like it has no predictive, and thus no testable, aspect, which means it cannot be investigated by science.
Picasso created art. As a creator, he performed this action in one of two ways--either he was an automaton, merely acting out the sum of his antecedents, or he was, in a free-will sense, a creator.
In the former case, the only obstacle to understanding why he painted the face blue is some necessary sum of data and calculating power. As a thought experiment, I can envision compiling all that can be known about Picasso and using quantum computer-level power not only to explain why he felt like it, but to predict what he felt like next; even what he would have felt like had some inputs differed--or if he had not died; we might even calculate the Picasso canvases-that-never-were. If that calculation entails spooling back to the Big Bang, that is just a larger calculation, not a qualitatively different one.
In the latter case, Picasso as an authentically free creator, your teleological why is instantly satisfied; he felt like it becomes the only possible solution: what series of hows and whys could take you any further? As a being capable of authentic creation, he embodied the why you seek. We could frog-march how all the way back to God and get no better answer.
Let me be clear, that "because he felt like it" is an answer to the why question, but the issue is whether or not you can investigate "why did he paint the face blue" scientifically.
The answer "because he felt like it" has no predictive or testable aspect to it, and thus it is not scientific.
... As a thought experiment, I can envision compiling all that can be known about Picasso and using quantum computer-level power not only to explain why he felt like it, but to predict what he felt like next; even what he would have felt like had some inputs differed--or if he had not died; we might even calculate the Picasso canvases-that-never-were. If that calculation entails spooling back to the Big Bang, that is just a larger calculation, not a qualitatively different one.
This is following the rabbit-hole of how it happened that he felt like it.
You say that science cannot answer the question; I don't see why science, reason, or logic should pose it.
Agreed. It is a philosophical question.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 556 by Omnivorous, posted 09-17-2014 9:04 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 615 of 638 (737334)
09-22-2014 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 613 by NoNukes
09-22-2014 9:18 AM


Re: why is the sky blue?
... If you can come up with a why question that has no answer that is not just a how question, ...
Why is the sky blue?
You are confusing your providing an answer to the question "How is the sky blue" with the question I asked being a why question "that is not just a how question."
It isn't a how question.
You are cherry picking the answers. There may be answers to the question that do provide testable inquiries.
because it was designed that way
because the universe just happened to self-arrange that way
I don't know
some other answer may be possible at a later date
Do any of these answers provide testable predictions?
Presumably you know of one now that provides testable predictions ... seeing as you complained about my list.
When you find one let me know.
e) It's random and there are many universes, but only the ones with blue skies produce life in the form RAZD occupies.
Curiously I can only speak for the universe I occupy, and that in a limited way. I see no way to test predictions about the color of skies in alternate universes, perhaps you can help me with that?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 613 by NoNukes, posted 09-22-2014 9:18 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 616 by NoNukes, posted 09-22-2014 2:43 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 622 by NoNukes, posted 09-23-2014 4:31 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 617 of 638 (737347)
09-22-2014 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 616 by NoNukes
09-22-2014 2:43 PM


Re: why is the sky blue?
If that is the case, then all why questions are actually how questions?
And you accuse me of moving the goal posts.
No, why questions should have why answers just as how answers are for how questions.
As has been mentioned before, the definition of the word why is not limited to the one you give it. And if we make the restriction you are insisting on, then all questions are how questions.
Curiously I feel that using different words to mean different things improves clarity in debate, while confusing definitions of one word with another allows for equivocation and confusion.
Both of those arguments are direct rebuttal of your position of how vs what. Your only response so far has been to repeat your position, sometimes with a different question.
Your argument is based on repeated confusion of one with the other rather than a real rebuttal.
If instead you want to ask, what ultimate purpose for the sky being blue, for which that ultimate purpose has no predecessor, then why don't you phrase your question that way instead of pretending that you are in charge of the dictionary.
That would be moving the goal posts ...
Which is unnecessary as it is irrelevant to the issue of "why" questions vs "how" questions and having answers that provide testable predictions that can be pursued with science -- and the fact that all the answers you have provided thus far for what can provide testable predictions that can be pursued with science are the answers to "how" questions.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 616 by NoNukes, posted 09-22-2014 2:43 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 620 by NoNukes, posted 09-22-2014 10:29 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024