Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why doesn't AI Falsify ID?
TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 71 (374007)
01-03-2007 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by aiguy
01-03-2007 12:42 PM


Perhaps you'll be able to tie this into my argument somehow, but as far as I can tell, this is what one would call a red herring.
Yeah, sorry, my head is not too deeply into this and I'm going to have to do some real work soon, but the point is that your example is not complete. You've reproduced one element of life (if I grant your premise). The ecosystem is self sustaining, computers are far from it. Anyway, proving that life *could* be formed without design in no way proves that it wasn't. You seem to find design distasteful, I don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by aiguy, posted 01-03-2007 12:42 PM aiguy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by aiguy, posted 01-03-2007 2:30 PM TheMystic has not replied
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 01-03-2007 2:45 PM TheMystic has replied

  
aiguy
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 71 (374036)
01-03-2007 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by TheMystic
01-03-2007 12:58 PM


Hi Mystic,
Mystic writes:
Yeah, sorry, my head is not too deeply into this and I'm going to have to do some real work soon, but the point is that your example is not complete. You've reproduced one element of life (if I grant your premise). The ecosystem is self sustaining, computers are far from it. Anyway, proving that life *could* be formed without design in no way proves that it wasn't. You seem to find design distasteful, I don't.
I believe the argument I present is a simple, coherent, knock-down argument against Intelligent Design as a viable scientific theory. The fact that we cannot prove that life was formed without design is completely irrelevant, for at least two reasons:
1) We cannot prove that life was formed without voodoo either.
2) ID doesn't actually say what "design" means in the first place - it only vaguely appeals to our intuitive notions about mind and God, which does not constitute a scientific explanation.
As for the eco-system being self-sustaining while computers are not - I see absolutely no connection to my argument at all.
As for my finding design distasteful - actually, you're wrong. My personal beliefs run toward some sort of thing that transcends material causality, and my ill-formed hunch is there is a connection between the quantum observation problem, consciousness, and order in the universe.
What I find distasteful is people who try to co-opt science and pretend that their ill-formed hunches are somehow scientifically supportable. That gets my goat. (That isn't a poke at you, Mystic, just a comment at large).

Science is not simply reason - it is much less than that. It is reason constrained by empiricism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by TheMystic, posted 01-03-2007 12:58 PM TheMystic has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 48 of 71 (374040)
01-03-2007 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by TheMystic
01-03-2007 12:58 PM


TheMystic writes:
You seem to find design distasteful, I don't.
You continue to ascribe base motives to those who reject ID as scientific. The rejection has nothing to do with distaste for the idea, nor with spiritual suicide or wanting to find disorder as you claimed in another thread. It is related to the lack of scientific support for the ID concept. Those of us who value science as a way of understanding our universe do have a strong distaste for efforts that promote ID as if it had already fulfilled the requirements of science when it has not, and this is perhaps what you are sensing.
ID concepts like CSI (Complex Specified Information) have no formal definition. By way of contrast, Shannon information does have a formal definition, to the point where you can calculate precisely how much information can be contained on a computer hard disk or in human DNA. While there can be a very precise answer to the question, "How much Shannon information is in human DNA?", because CSI has no formal definition and no standard of measurement there is no possible answer to the question, "How much CSI is in human DNA?"
Put another way, CSI has no more substance than the "aura" that spiritualists claim they can detect. If a spiritualist told you that you have an aura and I don't, you could never determine whether this were true or not because there's no way to measure. And if an IDist said humans have more CSI than rabbits, once again, you could never determine whether this were true or not because there is no way to measure.
When IDists start writing papers with titles like "Measurement Methods for CSI" and "Calibration Techniques for Measuring Irreducible Complexity" then you'll know that ID is starting to place itself on a scientific footing by creating the possibility of testability and replication. But ID lacks these qualities at the present time, and for this reason, and also because of the obvious religious ties that you make so clear with your references to God, ID could not possibly be considered science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by TheMystic, posted 01-03-2007 12:58 PM TheMystic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by aiguy, posted 01-03-2007 2:56 PM Percy has replied
 Message 50 by TheMystic, posted 01-03-2007 3:15 PM Percy has replied

  
aiguy
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 71 (374043)
01-03-2007 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Percy
01-03-2007 2:45 PM


Hi Percy,
Yes, well said - but let me point out one thing. You're right that CSI is not an objective metric (it's actually that "specified" part that really wrecks Dembski's attempt to position it as such). However, there is a very, very powerful intuition that we all share when it comes to recognizing artifacts that have complex form and function - function that serves some apparent goal.
So, the argument I've presented here does not hinge on the fact that this intuition cannot be formalized (even though it can't). Even if one grants, arguendo that we can detect CSI objectively, the fact remains that we have clear evidence that this CSI we recognize in the world can indeed be generated by purely stochastic means.

Science is not simply reason - it is much less than that. It is reason constrained by empiricism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 01-03-2007 2:45 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 01-03-2007 3:46 PM aiguy has replied

  
TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 71 (374047)
01-03-2007 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Percy
01-03-2007 2:45 PM


You continue to ascribe base motives to those who reject ID as scientific.
I think you're misunderstanding me. aiguy used the term 'no need' to theorize ID. What else does that indicate if not a preference for some other explanation? I certainly wasn't talking about anybody's morals, if that's what you mean. I'm talking about one's postulates.
ID concepts like CSI (Complex Specified Information) have no formal definition.
I never heard of CSI before. aiguy brought it up, not me. He says computers can generate CSI.
ID could not possibly be considered science.
Well, suit yourself, but I think that says more about the limitations of what you call science than ID. If you want to define science as excluding ID than I guess science will never be able to study ID. So I guess the thread about 'is there no way to test ID' was just a rhetorical question and I've been wasting my time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 01-03-2007 2:45 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by aiguy, posted 01-03-2007 3:20 PM TheMystic has not replied
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 01-03-2007 3:41 PM TheMystic has not replied

  
aiguy
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 71 (374049)
01-03-2007 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by TheMystic
01-03-2007 3:15 PM


Hi Mystic,
Mystic writes:
I think you're misunderstanding me. aiguy used the term 'no need' to theorize ID. What else does that indicate if not a preference for some other explanation?
It indicates the prinicple of parsimony, which is an essential component of scientific explanation.
Mystic writes:
I never heard of CSI before. aiguy brought it up, not me. He says computers can generate CSI.
CSI is Bill Dembski's invention, and it is the cornerstone of the attempt to position ID as a scientific endeavor. It fails in multiple ways, as has been pointed out here.
Mystic writes:
Well, suit yourself, but I think that says more about the limitations of what you call science than ID. If you want to define science as excluding ID than I guess science will never be able to study ID.
Nobody defines science that way. Rather, ID is excluded because it can't be empirically investigated, that's all.
Edited by aiguy, : typo

Science is not simply reason - it is much less than that. It is reason constrained by empiricism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by TheMystic, posted 01-03-2007 3:15 PM TheMystic has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 52 of 71 (374059)
01-03-2007 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by TheMystic
01-03-2007 3:15 PM


TheMystic writes:
Percy writes:
ID could not possibly be considered science.
Well, suit yourself, but I think that says more about the limitations of what you call science than ID. If you want to define science as excluding ID than I guess science will never be able to study ID..
You've misunderstood the point. I'm not defining science so as to exclude ID, I'm just telling you what the definition is. Science already had a definition long before ID started pounding on the doors of public school science classrooms, and that definition includes replicability and falsifiability. Anything which lacks these qualities, such as ID, cannot be considered science.
Presumably, since you're arguing the other side, you should be looking for ways to demonstrate that ID does possess the qualities of science, instead of speculating about other's distaste for ID or about evolution's destructiveness.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by TheMystic, posted 01-03-2007 3:15 PM TheMystic has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 53 of 71 (374061)
01-03-2007 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by aiguy
01-03-2007 2:56 PM


aiguy writes:
However, there is a very, very powerful intuition that we all share when it comes to recognizing artifacts that have complex form and function - function that serves some apparent goal.
Intuition is extremely subjective. I think you've somehow ventured out of hard science and into some other field, perhaps psychology.
So, the argument I've presented here does not hinge on the fact that this intuition cannot be formalized (even though it can't).
If it can't be formalized, how can you study it scientifically?
Even if one grants, arguendo that we can detect CSI objectively, the fact remains that we have clear evidence that this CSI we recognize in the world...
But this "clear evidence" of CSI is based upon intuition, which is the opposite of "clear evidence."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by aiguy, posted 01-03-2007 2:56 PM aiguy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by aiguy, posted 01-03-2007 4:31 PM Percy has replied

  
aiguy
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 71 (374076)
01-03-2007 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
01-03-2007 3:46 PM


Hi Percy,
Percy writes:
Intuition is extremely subjective. I think you've somehow ventured out of hard science and into some other field, perhaps psychology.
Of course intuition is subjective - it is the very epitome of subjective, non-scientific thinking! That is why I said Dembski's work fails in multiple ways, and that these intuitions can not be formalized.
Percy writes:
If it can't be formalized, how can you study it scientifically?
IT CANNOT BE! You completely misunderstood me.
Percy writes:
But this "clear evidence" of CSI is based upon intuition, which is the opposite of "clear evidence."
I look for arguments that will actually convince people that ID is not scientifically tenable. Dembski's formulation of CSI is complete trash, of course, but most IDer's don't even know what "CSI" is! What is the most simple, undeniable argument that one can pose which will convince people that we can't scientifically infer "intelligence" (whatever that is) as an explanation for biology?
My point to you was that you will not be able to convince people that complex form and function that evinces purpose cannot be recognized in the world. So what might compel people to stop saying we can use this to detect human-like "minds" at work to create biological structures, we might try another angle. My argument here is another angle, which allows for the "detection" of complex form and purposeful function arguendo - just for the sake of argument. Even if we grant that such a thing could be detected, ID still cannot validly infer anything but blind chance and necessity to account for it, for the reasons I've explained in this thread.

Science is not simply reason - it is much less than that. It is reason constrained by empiricism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 01-03-2007 3:46 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 01-03-2007 4:59 PM aiguy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 55 of 71 (374083)
01-03-2007 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by aiguy
01-03-2007 4:31 PM


I guess I'm just not able to follow wherever it is you are going. If you've found a non-scientific but scientific-sounding argument against ID that ID believers will find persuasive then more power to you, though it feels like you're countering a misconstrual with an appealing fallacy. But I grant that trying to explain the nature of science to creationists has not been an enterprise filled with success, and I guess it doesn't hurt to explore other avenues.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by aiguy, posted 01-03-2007 4:31 PM aiguy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by aiguy, posted 01-03-2007 5:21 PM Percy has replied

  
aiguy
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 71 (374093)
01-03-2007 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Percy
01-03-2007 4:59 PM


Hi Percy,
Percy writes:
I guess I'm just not able to follow wherever it is you are going. If you've found a non-scientific but scientific-sounding argument against ID that ID believers will find persuasive then more power to you, though it feels like you're countering a misconstrual with an appealing fallacy.
No, you don't understand. The form of the argument is this:
ID believes X, and that X implies Y.
I believe X is not true.
However, I assert that even if X was true, it would still not imply Y.
Therefore Y is not implied.
This is a valid argument (X is "CSI is detectable" and Y is "detecting CSI allows us to infer non-physical causation).
Edited by aiguy, : (corrected the logic from "Y is not true" to "Y is not implied", since the former would be a fallacy of denying the antecendent)

Science is not simply reason - it is much less than that. It is reason constrained by empiricism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 01-03-2007 4:59 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Percy, posted 01-03-2007 7:11 PM aiguy has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 71 (374141)
01-03-2007 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by aiguy
01-02-2007 3:46 PM


Re: Computer models
If you ask ten people for a definition of intelligence, you will get more than ten different answers.
You're probably right that we'd receive different answers, but at the same time, if we were given examples, I think we'd all generally agree. Meaning, suppose we saw the scores of a person after they've taken an IQ test. Because we know that the test was difficult coupled with the yielding of a high score, most people would generally come to the conclusion that he/she is highly intelligent.
But understand what you are really getting at. You are essentially saying that we can't really quantify intelligence and define it in a meaningful way kind of like we couldn't describe love scientifically in a meaningful way.
I think we have no idea. By "will", I presume you mean "contra-causal free will" or "libertarian free will".
I think introducing this as a variable just adds a superfluous element because in either case, free will can be granted in some manner.
That is, something with "will" can break the known laws of physics and make something happen that has no antecedent physical cause. Well, there is no evidence that anything of the sort ever happens.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you please expound?
Computer systems do things that their programmers have never anticipated.
Such as what? Is this all computers or supercomputers?
I don't think that the fact that computers are not yet as complex as living things is relevant. Why would it be?
I'm saying that perhaps it is possible that AI will be feasible in the future. I'm simply questioning its possibility now. As to why I used living beings as an example is because that's the only genuine measure of intelligence that we have to compare computers to.
once a computer exists, it can generate novel, complex functional structures all by itself, purely by natural processes of chance and necessity.
How can something synthetic go through any kind of natural process? Also, in order for necessity to exist, there first has to be potential consequences. What consequence exists for computers if they didn't evolve?
You may wish to argue that both computers and nature itself must have been created by something intelligent - that's fine with me, I won't argue that point.
I do believe that based on any number of things. Most notably is that its counter intuitive to suppose that anything can come into existence without causation. However, that's just my opinion on the theory. Its one of those paradoxes that neither stands strong or falls flat on its face. There will likely be a perpetual stalemate on the subject.
I'm not sure what question you mean when you say "biology is the only acceptable answer to the question".
Poor choice of words on my part. What I mean to say is, for strict naturalists, nature is the only place they can glean answers from.
Why would every intelligent thing have to have human-like emotions?
I don't think anything other humans possess human-like emotions.
Think about a complete psychopath - a defective human who has no emotions. Isn't it possible that this person could still learn calculus and physics and build watches.
What I am saying is, the more intelligent an animal is, the greater capacity they have for emotion. Intellect is very far reaching. I doubt that it only incorporates book smarts or an ability to engineer. Case in point: Would most people be likely to esteem Beethoven as intelligent? They probably would, but why?
Again, these questions are simply matters of definition. If you'd like to define intelligence such that learning is a necessary component, then you have just eliminated an omniscient creator as an intelligent thing (since an omniscient being already knows everything, so there is nothing to learn).
Then we're left with only mechanical function to equate with intelligence, which makes calculators intelligent.
Which part do you doubt? Reasoning and inferences - standard AI techniques. Learning - a whole discipline called machine learning. Self-programming - artificial neural networks are all self programming, and there are other techniques as well
This machine learning and self-programming, what does it entail? And what kind of software is needed for a computer to think for itself and not just choose the command it was given?
It turns out that the hardest things for humans to learn - advanced mathematics and theorem proving, championship chess playing, medical and machine diagnosis, etc - these things are relatively easy for computers to learn. Common sense, however - if you turn a glass of water upside-down over your lap, you will get wet - that is very hard for computers.
Your link didn't direct me to anything specific. But as for computers and common sense, isn't the mere fact that they can only perform the functions assigned to them prove that they aren't actually intelligent?
No, not everything must be - or can be - tried to see if it offers anything to science. Take my theory of gunderplitzen, for example. I believe that people are intelligent because they contain gunderplitzen. Do you think we ought to give this theory a scientific chance in order to see if it's true? (Don't ask me what gunderplitzen is - I'm not really sure yet).
If you developed a thesis on it, yes, of course. But you obviously use jocularity to make up a word that has no definition. It would be extremely unfair to characterize ID with that of gunderplitzen. If ID had no backbone, we wouldn't see many people in abject terror of it. Afterall, people don't fear straw men.
If X is a tsunami, then X is a tsunami no matter how X became a tsunami. If X is intelligent, then X is intelligent no matter how X became intelligent.
Then you essentially emasculate science. Everybody already knew that what goes up must come down. Explaining why is the answer that science has given. Everybody knew about heredity long before it was studied in detail. Explaining how it worked is the answer science gave. Likewise, we know that Tsunami's existed long before we understood why and how they form. Answering the how's and why's is what science is all about. The answer of why it is the way it is often the only important question in science.
I'm not saying that we would not like to know things. I'm saying that the way X became intelligent does not alter the fact that X is intelligent.
How it became intelligent is the only way to answer any questions. Again, science would die without those burning questions. Understanding the intelligence of the programmer is going to give you a greater understanding of the intelligence capacity of the computer program itself. One could apply that rationale to the Designer(s) of the universe/multiverse. Of course, answering that is exceedingly difficult-- granted.
My point here is that ID itself holds that intelligence can be "detected" without regard to the source of the intelligence.
ID is an inference just like anything else. Looking at chance alone doesn't explain anything. Anything could hypothetically happen by chance. However, when you add patterns with chance, it becomes nearly impossible for lightening to strike twice, thrice, and so on and so forth through unguided principles. So many ideal situations make life possible that are specifically contingent upon the success of another system.
No, I meant that you can decide something is intelligent without any consideration of how that thing became intelligent.
I agree with that, but if we were to stop there you might as well kiss science goodbye. Nobody cares that something exists. That's the evident part. They want to know why, how, where, when, etc.
A scientific theory can't offer meaningless terms as explanations for things.
Who says that it has to be meaningless, is my question? Is language meaningless?
Computers can reason, perform inferences, create novel designs of irreducibly complex machinery. They can induce rules from examples
A game on my computer can have rules. Say the computer based on my movements deduces that I fall off of a cyber cliff if I stray to far from the edge. The programmers designed it the away though, not the computer.
deduce facts from other facts, diagnose strange medical disorders
Based on the previous input supplied by doctors and programmers.
detect credit card fraud
Based on the parameters supplied by the programmers.
fix a deep space probe all by themselves
Based on the designers specifications.
beat the pants off of either one of us in a chess game
Pong could beat the pants off of a player. Is an Atari intelligent?
Could a computer be intelligent without any input or influence of an outside source?
Once the computer exists, it can do all these intelligent things purely by processes of chance and necessity. Once nature exists, then, it can do all these intelligent things purely by processes of chance and necessity. If you would like to argue that both computers and nature itself had an intelligent designer, I won't argue that.
It would seem to appear to be the case because have a chicken and an egg problem without it.
However, you can't argue that nature itself cannot do intelligent things (like create complex form and function of biology) all by itself, by processes of pure chance and necessity.
Necessity indicates intent. If you speak of nature in terms of itself gaining insight on self-preservation, then you are ultimately speaking about nature as if it is sentient.
I mean the deterministic physical laws (electricity, etc) according to which computers operate. The "chance" of computer systems comes from random (or pseudo-random) input... The analogy is between the computer system and natural processes - like evolution. Both operate according to pure chance and necessity, i.e. physical law plus randomness.
I don't understand this? The flux of electricity is completely intentional. Maybe I'm not understanding you though. Can you explain further to me?
My point is that ID offers "intelligence" as the explanation for biology, but "intelligence" has no scientifically useful definition. That isn't my fault.
Isn't intelligence the explanation for why your computer is intelligent? Its so obvious that I can't see why you would use a biological analogy to support it.
AI defines intelligence simply as "that which, if a person did it, we would tend to call it intelligent". That's all.
Its not that if a person did it, but that a person did do it. That's the whole point.
The plane does what it does, and it doesn't matter if you call it "flying" or not. The computer does what it does, and it doesn't matter if you call it "thinking", or "intelligent", or not.
That would render his quip void. He is appealing to some sort of absolute standard in order to supply any discernable meaning the quip in the first place.
You are arguing that "intelligence" has no clear meaning that we can agree on. I agree with you!!! So how can you have a scientific theory that offers "intelligence" as an explanation???
In the same way people can have a theory on chance as the explanation. Really what this is, is the typical mischaracterization of what ID is. For some bizarre reason, opponents of the theory think that if a Designer is invoked that somehow science will cease. What an absurd notion. Does it cease if we think that random chance is the answer? Obviously not. ID is nothing more than an inference that uses observation to corroborate the claim. I mean, really, what threat exists from it?
quote:
If there is no scientific way to detect capriciousness, then there is no way to detect intelligence.
Agreed!!!
You missed the rest of the post. If that truly is the case, then you would be incapable of discerning chance from design. That means you couldn't argue that design in nature is an absurd concept, because you would inevitably have to say that chance within nature is just as absurd.
My argument is that "intelligence" cannot be used to explain things. Nothing is explained by saying "it is intelligent".
No argument there. That's like supplying the answer to this question:
Why are there complex organisms in existence. Answer 1. Goddidit! Answer 2. Evolution! Neither explain squat without describing the how's and why of it. An answer of such brevity is inept to answer anything.
I have been fascinated by the mind/body problem since I was a little boy, and I've been studying philosophy of mind for more than three decades. Yes, at some point I'll start a thread in another forum, but I can only manage to participate in one thread at a time (I spend too much time as it is on this!!
Yeah, I know what you mean. EvC takes a lot of time out of the day. As for the other proposed topic, I would love to read it when it is done.
Its a pleasure having you here. I hope you find it intellectually stimulating and spiritually fulfilling here at EvC.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by aiguy, posted 01-02-2007 3:46 PM aiguy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by aiguy, posted 01-03-2007 10:39 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 58 of 71 (374157)
01-03-2007 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by aiguy
01-03-2007 5:21 PM


aiguy writes:
This is a valid argument (X is "CSI is detectable" and Y is "detecting CSI allows us to infer non-physical causation).
Mine is a valid argument, too (misconstrual is "detecting CSI allows us to infer non-physical causation", appealing fallacy is "CSI is detectable"). I agree with your basic approach, but I just don't see how a successful argument can be built upon postulating the detectability of something with no formal definition. I think you'll ultimately bog down in digressions over what CSI really is, at which point you'll have to agree upon a definition, which brings you back to what I thought was the more significant issue, CSI's lack of any formal definition. But hey, give it a try!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by aiguy, posted 01-03-2007 5:21 PM aiguy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2007 7:24 PM Percy has replied
 Message 63 by aiguy, posted 01-03-2007 10:45 PM Percy has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 59 of 71 (374163)
01-03-2007 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Percy
01-03-2007 7:11 PM


I agree with your basic approach, but I just don't see how a successful argument can be built upon postulating the detectability of something with no formal definition.
I didn't think that was what he was doing. It seems to me, from my reading, that he wants to argue that regardless of whether or not CSI is detectable, its presence or absence has nothing to do with design or "non-physical causation" or whatever.
Makes perfect sense to me, but I imagine ID's proponents won't pay any attention. Why would they?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Percy, posted 01-03-2007 7:11 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 01-03-2007 7:30 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 60 of 71 (374165)
01-03-2007 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by crashfrog
01-03-2007 7:24 PM


I didn't think that was what he was doing. It seems to me, from my reading, that he wants to argue that regardless of whether or not CSI is detectable, its presence or absence has nothing to do with design or "non-physical causation" or whatever.
Maybe, but this is what I was going by:
aiguy writes:
ID believes X, and that X implies Y.
I believe X is not true.
However, I assert that even if X was true, it would still not imply Y.
Therefore Y is not implied.
This is a valid argument (X is "CSI is detectable" and Y is "detecting CSI allows us to infer non-physical causation).
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2007 7:24 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2007 7:36 PM Percy has 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