A Line of Skulls for Mike the Viz

Cor,
Why should J be responsible here for something a year old and put on a different board?Consider Lawlor p 120 "The third determination continues this reflection on the essence of the sign. Derrida says, "We would be fully convinced, if here... Husserl had considered writing to be a sensible phenomenon" (LOG 97/97). If it were, then the bond that sense has to it could be broken. Yet writing, for Husserl in THE ORIGIN OF GEOMETRY, is "simultaneously" (`a la fois) a constituted sensible body (Korper) but also a constituting body proper or flesh (Leib). This simultaneity makes it difficult to understand how writing would save its Leiblichkeit from corporeal disaster (LOG 97/97). But according to Derrida, Husserl isn ot going to immobilize his analysis within this "ambiguity"; he is going to dissociate Leib from Korper (LOG 98/97). As Derrida says, "Although, in the word, Korper and Leib,body and flesh, are in fact numerically one and the same being, their senses are definitely heterogenous and nothing can come to the latter through the former" (LOG 98/98, Derrida's emphasis). Dispensing with the Korper, Husserl locates the danger to sense in the Geistigkeit of the Leib, in the intentional act (LOG 98/98). Forgetfullness of truth for Husserl, according to Derrida, therefore is nothing but the abdication of responsibility (LOG 98/98)."FROM LEONARD LAWLOR Derrida and Husserl The Basic Problem of Phenomenology 2002 Indiana Univ Press.

I'm only asking for an answer here. I don't even remember which board that other was, so I won't persue an answer there.

OK

quote:

---

[Statement 1]To wit : suppose that a new fossil is unearthed. Tell me, what does the evolutionist immediately set out to do? I'll tell you : s/he will set out to determine where this new fossil fits into the 'tree of life' that has been pre-supposed (and fabricated!) by evolution advocates.

​

[Statement 2]Does anyone here know how many degrees were 'earned' by writing a thesis/dissertation on the Piltdown skull and its evolutionary role? Does anyone here know how many of those granted degrees were retracted when the skull was discovered to be a hoax?

---

Don't you think that these two statements are contradictory? How do you think the Piltdown fraud was discovered? When further discoveries of hominid ancestors presented more and more a consistent family history for humans in which Piltdown Man was seen more and more as an anomaly. These fossils were not just placed in a "pre-supposed" tree - that people realized that Piltdown Man needed to be rexamined was because the other fossil finds were creating a very consistent picture in which Piltdown Man did not easily fit. To me, the discovery that Piltdown Man was a hoax is a very good argument about how consistent the fossil record is. If there were no relationships between the fossil species so that scientists were just forcing fossils into the tree any way they could, Piltdown Man would not have stood out.

Perhaps Joralex can show us research done to show how creationists would place the evidence of the skulls to show support for their view?

Presupposiitonalists are a small Protestant group (Calvinists, I think) following Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnson (both deceased).Essentially they argue that all belief systems rely on presuppositions (not quite true in the way that they mean it) and that only consistency matters (i.e. extreme epistemological relativism) and then turning round and insisting that *any* other belief system is inconsistent. When challeneged to support the claim they usually resort to attacking strawmen versions of other belef systems before admitting that they can't. (And the fact is that their own beleif system *is* inconsistent).Prone ot making other daft assertions such as the idea that anyone else using logic is "borrowing" it from the "Christian" (i.e. Presuppositionalist worldview) which rather ignores the fact that the pagan Greeks pretty much founded the discipline before Jesus was even born.In my experience they are also prone to drop the names of philosophers without bothering to understand what those philosphers actually said.

Well there is a lot of asertion and very little argument. You would think that if the problem was that the evolutionist side had a "religiously zealous commitment to materialism" that Joralex could produce strong arguments. Instead the evidence of this "bias" is a refusal to accept Joralex as the final authority (or in the terminology of his religion God).The tree of life is, of course, ultimately a development of the Linnaean classification system even though cladistic analysis has brought about a significant shift in the terminology and methods. But there really is no guarantee that a new specimen would fit, expecially now that we also have genetic evidence available for extant species. The whole system relies on life falling into a nested hierarchy and it is absolutely not the case that an arbitrary dataset would necessarily or even probably fall into such a pattern.Dembski's explanatory filter has one major problem. It is simply impractical to apply. To apply it we need to be able to produce probability estimates for ALL possible explanatiosn of a specified event and show that the probability falls below Dembski's Universal Probability Bound. I am aware of no cases in which this has been done - and certainly there are none in biology. If there is an intractable problem it is applying the filter - and that is a problem for Dembski and co.And I'll bet that nobody here *knows* how many degrees were earned based on writing a thesis or dissertation on the Piltdown skull - including Joralex. But the answer appears to be zero.
Joralex is probably relying on Lubenow's assertion that "it was said" that there were 500 doctoral dissertations on Piltdown.This talk.origins post reported the result of an investigation into the matter.
Piltdown thesesAs to the claim that it is next to impossible to do "true science" - well a little substance behind the assertion would go a long way. So far it remains an assertion founded only on the ideas of what scientists "would do" - coming from someone who starts with the idea that scientists must be forcing their metaphysical assumptions on the evidence. That is exactly the sort of argument that Joralex accuses scientists of using - except that Joralex doesn't even have evidence, just suppositions concocted to support the original assertion.[edited to correct URL - memo to self don't leave the "http://" inside URL tags][This message has been edited by PaulK, 10-13-2003]

Nicely put.I was going to post that T.O. link this A.M., but you beat me to it.I agree about Dembski's filter, too ... it's a fatal flaw.

Ooops, your T.O. link is broken (two "http" at the beginning). Try PhD Theses & Piltdown.See also 500 doctoral dissertations were written on Piltdown man. The entire site is well worth reading for those interested in the Piltdown hoax.

Once again, when asked to show us the money, you evade. You're running out of credibility fast. Perhaps you'd like to explain how, exactly?

So exactly what is wrong with the ordering of these skulls? Would you change it? And in what way?

Well there is a lot of asertion and very little argument. You would think that if the problem was that the evolutionist side had a "religiously zealous commitment to materialism" that Joralex could produce strong arguments.Instead the evidence of this "bias" is a refusal to accept Joralex as the final authority (or in the terminology of his religion God). You just can't stop beating that ol' dead horse, can you?

​

As expected, you guys have totally missed the point : Piltdown would never have stood for more than a few weeks/months (while it was being objectively/scientifically investigated) IF only REAL science were being conducted instead of a subjective promotion of materialistic Naturalism.

​

And every time I hear that this is a "good example of scientists correcting themselves" I want to puke. Actually, it's a case of "Ooops, another one of our people cheated and got caught and now we have to find a way save face." Just as with Ernst Haeckel...The whole system relies on life falling into a nested hierarchy and it is absolutely not the case that an arbitrary dataset would necessarily or even probably fall into such a pattern. And when it doesn't "fall into such a pattern", does the tree go into the fire? Are you kidding? The tree is immediately modified with an ad hoc hypothesis or some other remedy. To wit : what did Goldschmidt, Eldredge and Gould do when the fossil evidence clashed with the evolutionary predictions? Abracadabra - something was pulled out of the ol' hat to save evolution! Enter Hopeful Monsters and PE - the day is saved and evolution lives on.

​

And I'll bet you STILL don't get it, do you?Dembski's explanatory filter has one major problem. It is simply impractical to apply. To apply it we need to be able to produce probability estimates for ALL possible explanatiosn of a specified event and show that the probability falls below Dembski's Universal Probability Bound. I am aware of no cases in which this has been done - and certainly there are none in biology. If there is an intractable problem it is applying the filter - and that is a problem for Dembski and co. Nonsense - but I've heard this countless times before so don't feel too bad.

​

Unless we wish to embark on Alice-in-Wonderland excursions, the scientist must go wherever the evidence leads and must make decisions on the most plausible explanation given the present state of knowledge and the objective observations.

​

As things stand today, neither chance nor physical laws provide a sufficient/scientific basis for materialistic Naturalism's explanation of the emergence or complexity of life. The filter simply infers that Design constitutes the best explanation for this observation. There is no need to compute the probability or to compare it to any bound. You et al. create a strawman so that you can demolish it and claim victory. NO SALE here.And I'll bet that nobody here *knows* how many degrees were earned based on writing a thesis or dissertation on the Piltdown skull - including Joralex. But the answer appears to be zero.
Joralex is probably relying on Lubenow's assertion that "it was said" that there were 500 doctoral dissertations on Piltdown. I did ask the question, did I not?

​

To find the answer, it would be necessay to do a comprehensive search of all degrees granted in relevant fields during an almost 40-year period, all thesis/dissertations written for those degrees, and in all candidate learning institutions. Furthermore, we are talking about 50-80+ years ago.

​

So, no - I certainly don't know "how many". However, based on the historical importance of the finding, it would be totally unreasonable to say that no PhD candidate took this finding into heavy consideration. Nowadays a finding of that magnitude will have many papers/theses being published in no time at all.

​

But there's more than just 'speculation' on this. In a website that one of your comrades links to you'll find the following:

​

"In the introduction to The Piltdown Men (1972), Millar says " over a hundred essays were written about [Piltdown man]". This estimate is credible, the 1920 edition of H.G. Wells' The Outline of History remarks "more than a hundred books, pamphlets, and papers have been written [about Piltdown Man]". W. & A. Quenstedt listed over 300 references in 1936 in Hominidae fossiles. Fossilium Catalogus I: Animalia, 74: 191-197."

​

I happen to own a copy of H.G. Well's 'The Outline of History' (Volumes 1 & 2) and there is no doubt that when the Piltdown "discovery" was made it was regarded as a monumental "discovery" and, as such, it would've made it into any advanced academic program. That's the way those things operate - then as well as today.

​

You must remember two things : you evolutionists were - at that historical period - frantically looking for a "missing link" and Piltdown gave you just that. Second, it wasn't discovered to be a hoax until 40 years later. During those years Piltdown was, for most people, just as Archaeopteryx is regarded today - as a "solid" piece of evolutionary evidence. IOW, had you been alive in 1930, you would have been fanatically citing Piltdown as "solid evidence" of evolution. Talk about 'egg on your face'! As to the claim that it is next to impossible to do "true science" - well a little substance behind the assertion would go a long way. So far it remains an assertion founded only on the ideas of what scientists "would do" - coming from someone who starts with the idea that scientists must be forcing their metaphysical assumptions on the evidence. That is exactly the sort of argument that Joralex accuses scientists of using - except that Joralex doesn't even have evidence, just suppositions concocted to support the original assertion. Why am I bothering to post here...?

​

Joralex

Beats the crap out of me! You bring absolutely nothing to the table, except your tired old "That's complicated! Goddidit!" And then you don't even bother to read the links that people give you where this: is shown to be already accomplished.

Joralex, That would be, the theory adapted to accomodate the evidence, right? Of course, it would take to long to explain, & you wouldn't understand it anyway.If you want to discuss cladistics, or evolutionary rate change, then by all means open a new thread. Oh, but there is! The person applying the test is required to make judgement calls on likelihood at every step, without a test with which to derive said likelihood. The filter is therefore reduced to a subjective "I believe god did it".Also, were waiting for you to point out the metaphysics that underpins evolution but not the rest of science here, or at least let us know why evolution/science having a metaphysical base in some way invalidates it.Mark

This does not mention any PhD theses. Many people have looked hard for PhD theses on Piltdown, and found exactly zero. As someone said, "... the scientist must go wherever the evidence leads and must make decisions on the most plausible explanation given the present state of knowledge and the objective observations." The most plausible answer to yuor question is "no PhD theses were written on Piltdown". Ignoring the "hopeful monster" silliness, why do you claim that PE is ad-hoc? Ah, I see, you don't have any idea how Dembski's filter works. It requires computing the probability the event of interest occurred through "regularity". Dembski attempted to calculate the probability of bacterial flagella evolving in No Free Lunch and obviously failed spectacularly. As Wein says in Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates: A Tornado in a Junkyard:

quote:

---

It has been several years since Dembski first claimed to have detected design in biology by applying his method of inference. Yet until the publication of No Free Lunch, he had never provided or cited the details of any such application. Critics were therefore looking forward to seeing the long-promised probability calculation that would support the claim. While I, for one, did not expect a convincing calculation, even I was amazed to discover that Dembski has offered us nothing but a variant on the old Creationist "tornado in a junkyard" straw man, namely the probability of a biological structure occurring by purely random combination of components.

---

-------------------------------------------I notice you are conspicuously absent from the Evolution of the eye? The myth goes on... thread since an expert on Descartes showed up. A pity; I was looking forward to learning something from the discussion. Or perhaps you are incapable of disucssing Descartes with someone who has actualy studied him?