Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2017 7:29 PM
388 online now:
AdminPhat (Phat), CRR, edge, Faith, Genomicus, Meddle, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (8 members, 380 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,396 Year: 10,002/21,208 Month: 3,089/2,674 Week: 505/961 Day: 118/117 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3637
38
3940
...
43Next
Author Topic:   Is there a legitimate argument for design?
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


(3)
Message 556 of 638 (737150)
09-17-2014 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 518 by RAZD
09-16-2014 5:49 PM


Re: why is the sky blue?
Hi, RAZD. I'm donning my Devil's Advocate cap.

It seems to me that your why is simply an infinitely reiterative how: the notion of a First Cause, a Prime Mover, is implicit in your argument. That argument turned out a poor proof of God, since one has no reason to stop anywhere in the causal chain.

Consider Picasso:

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.

I should note that Picasso the Creator might well provoke a search for the Creator of Picasso, but then again, where would one stop? If the Tao moved on the face of the nothingness, whence came those? We are, as we have been before, left with gods nested like those little Russian dolls.

Seeking the why, the purpose, occurs to us because we are creatures and thus things to whom purpose is evident and attractive. The ancients lived in a mythopoeic space, where every object and event was purposive. We still exhibit that ancient mind-set when we curse what stubbed our toe or embrace the genetic fallacy on a dark and stormy night...

Purpose is for the living: I think you wish to deny science the power to answer the why because it appears to create space for the deus of the Deist. I don't mind that, but I see no reason to believe it, either.

You say that science cannot answer the question; I don't see why science, reason, or logic should pose it.

You pose it for the same reason Picasso painted that face blue.

AbE: You say science cannot answer why: I think it's the only chance we've got.

Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.


"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 518 by RAZD, posted 09-16-2014 5:49 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 614 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2014 2:15 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9440
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 557 of 638 (737154)
09-18-2014 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 547 by taiji2
09-17-2014 4:26 PM


Re: The Tao
Well yes one can infer that. Millions and billions of people have and have (do) make that inference.

Do they make an inference or have the formed their opinion in some way that really does not constitute a logical inference? Some example logic from one person rather than a claim to billions would be pretty persuasive.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 547 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 4:26 PM taiji2 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 558 by taiji2, posted 09-18-2014 1:32 AM NoNukes has responded

    
taiji2
Member (Idle past 844 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 558 of 638 (737156)
09-18-2014 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 557 by NoNukes
09-18-2014 12:00 AM


Re: The Tao
Well yes one can infer that. Millions and billions of people have and have (do) make that inference.

NoNukes writes:

Do they make an inference or have the formed their opinion in some way that really does not constitute a logical inference? Some example logic from one person rather than a claim to billions would be pretty persuasive.

You made a point which made me stop, think and retract my comment as stated. i did not make my original comment dishonestly. I had not thought as deeply as you.

On further reflection I do not believe billions of people make unguided inference of design from chance observation. In my opinion, the closer truth is the vast majority of people are too intellectually lazy to make an inference on their own.

I find it more likely, as you suggest, that the large population is guided to an opinion more often than not. People as a group often seem comfortable receiving their logic from others.

All that said, I am not sure it negates my conclusion of a large population of observers gathering evidence.

Even if guided by some other's logic to consider design in a maple leaf or an ant hill, is it illogical to assume that the observer, once guided to observe, would not make their own judgement of the evidence or lack?

Does being guided to consider presume being guided to a conclusion? I concur that the observer will probably have been influenced by the cues of the guide. The cues probably come as guide conclusions. I will have to think more on this. thanks


This message is a reply to:
 Message 557 by NoNukes, posted 09-18-2014 12:00 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 560 by NoNukes, posted 09-18-2014 10:35 AM taiji2 has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15561
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 559 of 638 (737158)
09-18-2014 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 552 by taiji2
09-17-2014 5:12 PM


Re: The Tao
taiji2 writes:

Percy writes:

Ringo is saying the same thing others have already said, that science is tentative. Our understanding of the natural world can change in light of new information or improved insight.

I have no problem with what ringo said. I did observe other comments on the thread that were not what ringo said.

No. In their own words everyone has said the same thing about scientific tentativity.

Thank you. I was not aware of this accepted view. I just learned and you taught me. Do you have a revision to the old 92% junk number that floats around for us common folk? I have many questions, but presume you don't want to teach on this forum. If you have any references to reading though, I do have a keen interest.

Wherever you obtained the 92% figure, you can be sure it has changed and will continue to change. Wikipedia has an article on Noncoding DNA.

I looked fanciful up in Merriam-Webster and found no reference to evidence in any of the accepted definitions.

And Ringo looked up "fanciful" for you in Merriam-Webster and found that it *did* reference "evidence" in his Message 541:

quote:
1: marked by fancy or unrestrained imagination rather than by reason and experience link

Every time someone uses different terminology you seem to get lost.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 552 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 5:12 PM taiji2 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 562 by taiji2, posted 09-18-2014 4:46 PM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9440
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 560 of 638 (737160)
09-18-2014 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 558 by taiji2
09-18-2014 1:32 AM


Re: The Tao
All that said, I am not sure it negates my conclusion of a large population of observers gathering evidence.

We only need one or two. Does not matter what everyone else does. So where are the one or two? What is the logic behind citing large numbers of people who accept a proposition vs one or two pieces of evidence? You've already acknowledged that the bulk of those people are not looking at evidence,


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 558 by taiji2, posted 09-18-2014 1:32 AM taiji2 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 561 by taiji2, posted 09-18-2014 4:17 PM NoNukes has responded

    
taiji2
Member (Idle past 844 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 561 of 638 (737170)
09-18-2014 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 560 by NoNukes
09-18-2014 10:35 AM


Re: The Tao
All that said, I am not sure it negates my conclusion of a large population of observers gathering evidence.

NoNukes writes:

We only need one or two.


Perhaps you are right. The needs for answers for large populations is perhaps the subject of a separate debate. I accept the idea that volume of evidence does not necessarily trump quality of evidence.

NoNukes writes:

Does not matter what everyone else does.

"does not matter" is a broad brush I think, but agree it does not matter for our conversation here.

NoNukes writes:

So where are the one or two?

If you are happy with one, then I am an observer gathering evidence. That is a fact as I understand the definitions of fact and observe and gather and evidence.

NoNukes writes:

What is the logic behind citing large numbers of people who accept a proposition vs one or two pieces of evidence?

If large numbers of people think they are seeing evidence, it begs the question (to me) whether something is there to investigate. I have no problem with the one or two pieces of evidence approach if that can get you to the truth.

NoNukes writes:

You've already acknowledged that the bulk of those people are not looking at evidence,

Perhaps I did not communicate well. My recollection is that is not what I said. I acknowledged that in my opinion most people are intellectually lazy and in my opinion many people are led to ideas. I never said those people are not looking at evidence. If I did, I retract. If you could stick to what I actually say rather than your characterization of what I say, we could save some time.

As to characterizations, I am willing to let it slide on occasion, we all slip into that sort of thing without thinking. Too much of it, however, might lead me to believe you are using what I construe as an intellectually dishonest debate tactic.

Edited by taiji2, : pasted in wrong reply


This message is a reply to:
 Message 560 by NoNukes, posted 09-18-2014 10:35 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 567 by NoNukes, posted 09-18-2014 7:16 PM taiji2 has not yet responded

    
taiji2
Member (Idle past 844 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 562 of 638 (737171)
09-18-2014 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 559 by Percy
09-18-2014 9:09 AM


Re: The Tao
I looked fanciful up in Merriam-Webster and found no reference to evidence in any of the accepted definitions.

Percy writes:

And Ringo looked up "fanciful" for you in Merriam-Webster and found that it *did* reference "evidence" in his Message 541:

quote:
1: marked by fancy or unrestrained imagination rather than by reason and experience link

Perhaps you can highlight or color code the word for me. I still do not find the word evidence in what ringo provided.[/qs]

Percy writes:

Every time someone uses different terminology you seem to get lost.


In my opinion, diferent terminology is not allowed when someone claims anything "by definition". In my opinion, the definition should include what is claimed. In this case it does not. You can argue inference, but inference is not definition.

The rest of your comment appears(to me) to be your observation on my competency or character. I will revisit readings on what is considered intellectually dishonest debate tactics. For the moment I will allow that may not be what you intend.

Edited by taiji2, : No reason given.


The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.

The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.

The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.

The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 559 by Percy, posted 09-18-2014 9:09 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 563 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-18-2014 5:22 PM taiji2 has responded
 Message 570 by Percy, posted 09-18-2014 8:32 PM taiji2 has responded
 Message 576 by ringo, posted 09-19-2014 11:55 AM taiji2 has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15769
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 563 of 638 (737172)
09-18-2014 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 562 by taiji2
09-18-2014 4:46 PM


Re: The Tao
In my opinion, diferent terminology is not allowed when someone claims anything "by definition". In my opinion, the definition should include what is claimed.

Now you're just being picky. Suppose I said "By definition, a vegetarian does not eat the flesh of animals". This is true; and the fact that you can't find a dictionary which specifically uses the phrase "the flesh of animals" rather than "meat" in its definition is irrelevant. And if you think it is relevant, then you should not forget that there are no rules restricting who can write a dictionary, I could turn out a very short one myself. A lot of words would be missing, but you'd find at least one entry under V.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 562 by taiji2, posted 09-18-2014 4:46 PM taiji2 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 564 by taiji2, posted 09-18-2014 6:43 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 844 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 564 of 638 (737174)
09-18-2014 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 563 by Dr Adequate
09-18-2014 5:22 PM


Re: The Tao
In my opinion, diferent terminology is not allowed when someone claims anything "by definition". In my opinion, the definition should include what is claimed.

Dr. Adequate writes:

Now you're just being picky.

In my opinion, that is your opinion. I have no problem if that is what you think, but I do not see how your opinion of me furthers the debate. Please stop throwing me straw men that I must respond to.

Dr. Adequate writes:

Suppose I said "By definition, a vegetarian does not eat the flesh of animals". This is true; and the fact that you can't find a dictionary which specifically uses the phrase "the flesh of animals" rather than "meat" in its definition is irrelevant.

Thank you for this excellent opportunity to manifest truth.
I googled Merrian-Webster for definitions of the words vegetarian and meat. I could print the definitions out for you, but that would make for a long post.

Merrian-Webster does indeed specify a person who does not eat meat as the definition of vegetarian, giving no reference other than to the word herbivore.

Merrian-Webster provides a lengthy definition of meat which includes "the edible part of something" as distinguished from its covering. Webster went on to specify nuts as an example.

It is a fact that if I took meat, by definition, and referred to the definition of vegetarian in the same source, I could be led to believe that vegetarians did not eat nuts. That is untrue in most instances based on my personal experience with vegetarians.

My conclusion is that the definition of vegetarian in Merrian-Webster is flawed. If truth is that vegetarians do not eat the flesh of animals, then that is what the authoritative source should have said. The definition they gave is misleading. Meat is by definition not only the flesh of animals.

Dr. Adequate writes:

And if you think it is relevant,


asked and answered

Dr. Adequate writes:

then you should not forget that there are no rules restricting who can write a dictionary, I could turn out a very short one myself. A lot of words would be missing, but you'd find at least one entry under V.

I cited Merrian-Webster because of the assumption that Merriam-Webster would be viewed as an authoritative source without challenge. I do contend that in the general population Merrian-Webster as an authoritative source is accepted, seldom with challenge. Your offer to write a dictionary I see as just being arbitrary and argumentative.


The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.

The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.

The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.

The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-18-2014 5:22 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 565 by Coyote, posted 09-18-2014 6:57 PM taiji2 has responded
 Message 568 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-18-2014 7:51 PM taiji2 has not yet responded
 Message 569 by NoNukes, posted 09-18-2014 8:02 PM taiji2 has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5655
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 565 of 638 (737175)
09-18-2014 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 564 by taiji2
09-18-2014 6:43 PM


Arguing over definitions
In the vast majority of debates I have seen on this site, over a number of years, it is creationists who want to change standard scientific terms and who will go on at length in an effort to do so.

It becomes very boring, the more so because it is unnecessary.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by taiji2, posted 09-18-2014 6:43 PM taiji2 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 566 by taiji2, posted 09-18-2014 7:15 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 844 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 566 of 638 (737177)
09-18-2014 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 565 by Coyote
09-18-2014 6:57 PM


Re: Arguing over definitions
Coyote writes:

In the vast majority of debates I have seen on this site, over a number of years, it is creationists who want to change standard scientific terms and who will go on at length in an effort to do so.

Since you are responding to my post, I presume this vague reference to your past has to do with me.

The reference I presume you are making is to the use of the word fanciful.

I did not realize fanciful was a standard scientific term. And no, I do not wish to pursue this further because it is boring and unnecessary. And yes, if you will give me the ISBN number of a book of scientific terms that should not be changed, I will abide with that........ maybe not.

Coyote writes:

It becomes very boring, the more so because it is unnecessary.


The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.

The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.

The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.

The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 565 by Coyote, posted 09-18-2014 6:57 PM Coyote has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9440
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 567 of 638 (737178)
09-18-2014 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 561 by taiji2
09-18-2014 4:17 PM


Re: The Tao
Here is what you said.

In my opinion, the closer truth is the vast majority of people are too intellectually lazy to make an inference on their own.

So even if they saw the evidence, such evidence is not the source of their opinion. They are not looking at the evidence when they form their opinion.

Here is the characterization you are complaining about:

I never said those people are not looking at evidence

I doubt you could slide an oiled playing card between the words you chose and my characterization.

"does not matter" is a broad brush I think, but agree it does not matter for our conversation here.

Why even pick silly nits like this? Do you have support for your position or don't you?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by taiji2, posted 09-18-2014 4:17 PM taiji2 has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15769
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 568 of 638 (737179)
09-18-2014 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 564 by taiji2
09-18-2014 6:43 PM


Re: The Tao
Please stop throwing me straw men that I must respond to.

I wonder what you mean by that?

I cited Merrian-Webster because of the assumption that Merriam-Webster would be viewed as an authoritative source without challenge. I do contend that in the general population Merrian-Webster as an authoritative source is accepted, seldom with challenge.

That is because its authority is not usually leant on by people saying "Such-and-such a thing cannot be definitionally true of x because when I look in the Merriam-Webster dictionary under x I don't see the exact phrase you used." However authoritative it is, it doesn't have enough authority to let you do that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by taiji2, posted 09-18-2014 6:43 PM taiji2 has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9440
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 569 of 638 (737180)
09-18-2014 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 564 by taiji2
09-18-2014 6:43 PM


Re: The Tao
My conclusion is that the definition of vegetarian in Merrian-Webster is flawed. If truth is that vegetarians do not eat the flesh of animals, then that is what the authoritative source should have said. The definition they gave is misleading. Meat is by definition not only the flesh of animals.

The word meat has, in addition to the meaning you are using to make this ridiculous argument, another meaning, namely "the flesh of an animal used as food".

The dictionary is just fine. Its limitation are that it does not have infinite prevention against deliberate misuse. Of course no reference is proof against this kind of foolishness.

Perhaps you can use a more meaty argument?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by taiji2, posted 09-18-2014 6:43 PM taiji2 has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15561
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 570 of 638 (737181)
09-18-2014 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 562 by taiji2
09-18-2014 4:46 PM


Re: The Tao
taiji2 writes:

Perhaps you can highlight or color code the word for me. I still do not find the word evidence in what ringo provided.
...
In my opinion, diferent terminology is not allowed when someone claims anything "by definition". In my opinion, the definition should include what is claimed. In this case it does not. You can argue inference, but inference is not definition.

Instead of making up lots of silly rules and arguing silly points, why don't you try discussing the topic?

Your claim is that there are things we can know that science can't study, i.e., things which have no evidence. That makes no sense to us, and so we ask you questions like, "How is your idea about something that has no evidence any less fanciful than unicorns?"

This is what you have yet to explain, so why not get on with it?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 562 by taiji2, posted 09-18-2014 4:46 PM taiji2 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 571 by Coyote, posted 09-18-2014 8:39 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 572 by taiji2, posted 09-18-2014 8:42 PM Percy has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
3637
38
3940
...
43Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017