|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
When Richard Dawkins starts talking about memes, or explanations for consciousness it is just as much a matter of faith as is God did it. And yet we see evidence of "memes" in other animals:Blue Planet Biomes - Japanese Macaque quote: Behavior passed on from generation to generation, behavior that has a survival benefit (except maybe the snowballs), but is not part of the genetic inheritance: meme.
If there is no empirical evidence a theistic explanation is just as valid as a materialistic explanation. Then we are de facto ignorant of the evidence, and thus any concept based on ignorance is as good as another eh? The difference is that one makes predictions for what fills the gap and then looks for them, the other finds comfort in preserving ignorance. Take your pick. I have no problem with people finding comfort in faith based concepts as long as they (1) don't stop science from finding answers, and (2) don't ignore evidence that contradicts the concepts. When you ignore contradictory evidence you have crossed the line from faith to delusion. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
iceage writes: Memetics: the theoretical and empirical science that studies the replication, spread and evolution of memes Dawkins in "A Devil's Chaplain" writes: Another objection is that we don't know what memes are made of, or where they reside. Memes have not yet found their Watson and Crick; they even lack their Mendel. Whereas genes are to be found in precise locations on chromosones, memes presumably exist in brains, and we have even less chance of seeing one than of seeing a gene (though the neurobiologist Juan Delius has pictured his conjecture of what a meme might look like). Dawkins talks about memes like believers talk about God. Dawkins may be a fine scientist but that doesn't mean that everything he says is scientific. Your quote from wiki only tells a part of what is said. Further on in that wiki link it states "Memetics can be simply understood as a method for scientific analysis of cultural evolution". Memetics is a method of analyising cultural changes which is not the same thing at all as believing that memes actually exist. The study of cultural change can be tested; the study of memes can't. Cultural changes happen. Dawkins can say that they occur because of memes whereas a Theist can say that they change because of the way that we are designed. Neither is scientific nor can they be tested by empirical means. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
RickJB writes: Wrong. One is bourne out of faith, the other is tentatively indicated by circumstantial empirical evidence. That same circumstatial empirical evidence can be used to come to the conclusion that we are designed. Either position requires faith. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5020 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
GDR writes: That same circumstatial empirical evidence can be used to come to the conclusion that we are designed. Two questions:- 1. Which circumstantial evidence points to ID? 2. In what way has this circumstantial evidence been used to make successful predictions and to unearth direct evidence?
GDR writes: Either position requires faith. Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. Scientists go out and try to find evidence, they don't rely on faith. If they did rely only on faith then you certainly wouldn't be typing messages into a computer right now. For a scientist a gap in any evidence is a challenge to be solved. For many people of faith the same gap represents an escape route into an oasis of ignorance where their beliefs cannot be challenged.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
That same circumstatial empirical evidence can be used to come to the conclusion that we are designed. But NOT to the conclusion that we are "Intelligently Designed."
Either position requires faith. No. Faith is a belief in that which cannot be seen or examined. The former position can be based solely on the evidence while the later requires an initial "Faith" in the existence of some Designer. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
That same circumstatial empirical evidence can be used to come to the conclusion that we are designed. Either position requires faith. There is considerable evidence that the type of "design" that we are an example of is exactly NOT the kind of designs that humans (the only intelligent designers we know of) produce. In fact, the evidence (not "circumstantial" -- but I'm not sure what you mean with that word) shows that we are a product of evolutionary processes because we are formed in exactly the way that experimental "designs" produced by those processes are formed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
RickJD writes: Two questions:- 1. Which circumstantial evidence points to ID? 2. In what way has this circumstantial evidence been used to make successful predictions and to unearth direct evidence? 1. The moral code. The intracacy, balance and symmetry in nature. Our ability to love or hate, know sorrow or joy, appreciate beauty, etc. That we can express ideas. 2. In no way. Neither can the study of memes. Memetics as I posted earlier is the study of cultural evolution. I am not saying that cultural evolution doesn't occur. What I am saying is that there is no empirical evidence to explain why cultural evidence occurs. Dawkins and others propose memes whereas others like myself believe that there is the hand of a designer behind the process. Neither position is scientific so we are forced to come to our own conclusions based on non-scientific evidence.
GDR writes: Either position requires faith.RickJD writes: Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. Scientists go out and try to find evidence, they don't rely on faith. If they did rely only on faith then you certainly wouldn't be typing messages into a computer right now. Saying that memes exist doesn't make it true either. I agree that scientists try and find evidence. But when they, (as Dawkins does with memes), can't find empirical evidence and go ahead and publish the theory anyway, then it becomes an issue of faith. Either the metaphysical exists or it doesn't. We are not going to be able to prove either position through empirical means. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
jar writes: But NOT to the conclusion that we are "Intelligently Designed." I understand that you would have done better but I guess God just had to go with the intelligence that he had.
jar writes: No. Faith is a belief in that which cannot be seen or examined. The former position can be based solely on the evidence while the later requires an initial "Faith" in the existence of some Designer. Memes cannot be seen or examined thus requiring faith, whether or not an intelligent designer exists or not. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Unless you're going intpo the philosophy of "zombies" you really don't have a point. If you're prepared to make the minimum philosophical commitment that other people have minds then memes are clearly indirectly observable. You can just ask people about their beleifs and where they got them from ! Why are you so dead set against the idea of memes anyway ? You keep going on about it, to no good point. Why ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
NosyNed writes: There is considerable evidence that the type of "design" that we are an example of is exactly NOT the kind of designs that humans (the only intelligent designers we know of) produce. In fact, the evidence (not "circumstantial" -- but I'm not sure what you mean with that word) shows that we are a product of evolutionary processes because we are formed in exactly the way that experimental "designs" produced by those processes are formed. (I was quoting Rick, when I used the term "circumstantial".) This is just the same old argument. I'm not arguing that the evolutionary processes exist. Why do they exist? How did they come into existence in the first place? These questions can't be answered by the scientific method. All we can do, as I said, is look at the non-scientific aspects of our existence and come to our own conclusions. In my view none of this or us would exist without an intelligent designer. Science is about discovering what we can about the nature of the design. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes: Why are you so dead set against the idea of memes anyway ? You keep going on about it, to no good point. Why ? Atheists are forever accusing theists of using the argument of "God of the Gaps". I as a theist contend that atheists do exactly the same thing. There is evidence that cultural evolution exists. Why does it exist. A theist would suggest the possibility that maybe this is part of a metaphysical design. Dawkins, the atheist, suggests the possibility of memes. Theists fill the gap with an intelligent designer and Atheists fill the gap with memes. "God of the Gaps" or "Science of the Gaps". Your choice. There is no empirical evidence for either thus both positions are positions of faith. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: So since you got offended that atheists tell the truth, you want to try to turn the argument back on them. Not a very good idea.
quote: As far as I am aware the gap was filled long before the memes were formally proposed. There is no science of the gaps here - just observations. And equally there is no "God of the Gaps" argument - just an assumption without evidence. Really you are taking a creationist-like position of denying the existence of relevant evidence because you don't like the answers it points to.
quote: If you really want to assert that the writings of, say Locke, Mill or Adam Smith - or the U.S. Consitution and the Federalist Papers - don't exist or had no influence then you would be going against the empirical evidence. There is certainly empirical evidence that the writings exist and that people appeal to these writings to justify policies with cultural effects. To deny that cultures can change naturally is simply absurd.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I understand that you would have done better but I guess God just had to go with the intelligence that he had. If you look at the product, critters, then hell yes I could do better. See Message:8 of the Intelligent Design, an Engineering Perspective.
Memes cannot be seen or examined thus requiring faith, whether or not an intelligent designer exists or not. But they can. We do just that here at EvC and in fact, that is exactly what you are doing in questioning my Memes. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5944 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Earlier you said there is no empirical evidence for memes. I pointed out there is empirical evidence.
For example, the speed at which a meme spreads has been analyzed so that one can predict how fast a meme will spread through a population (within the minds of humans at least). There are papers that empirically derive "transmission coefficients" based on empirical data.
GDR writes: Further on in that wiki link it states "Memetics can be simply understood as a method for scientific analysis of cultural evolution". Memetics is a method of analyising cultural changes which is not the same thing at all as believing that memes actually exist. OK From a practical point of view, if a method of analyzing cultural changes works and finds value in predicting outcomes and explaining phenomenon that is better than a alternating method that does not.
GDR writes: Cultural changes happen. Dawkins can say that they occur because of memes whereas a Theist can say that they change because of the way that we are designed. Neither is scientific nor can they be tested by empirical means. Can you elaborate. I am fuzzy on how Theism predicts or explains cultural change. I am not even sure how the concept of a meme is apposed to intelligent design?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Aren't memes just an abstraction of data. Aren't they just a framework for interpreting data in the same way that Freud's ego, superego and id were frameworks for interpreting psychological data?
In other words, you can't "observe" a meme. Memes are just a way of interpreting and grouping cultural data. They have no actual reality, which is what I think GDR means. (Or if he doesn't mean that, then he should. ) --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024