|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why only one Designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: Straggler writes: We are talking about entities which are capable of designing and creating our universe. An omnipotent being is just one example of such an entity. That's exactly the point I've been making. It's just one example of many possibilities. Of course it is just one example of many possibilities. But you can only comment on the number of designers necessary if you specify the design possibility you are considering. They have specified their designer. And based on this specification only one designer is logically necessary.
ringo writes: The point that I've been making here is that their comments on the number required are inconsistent with their own logic. Their comments are entirely logically consistent with the designer they have specified.
ringo writes: You can't know it's one. Unless that which is doing the designing is specified you cannot say anything at all about numbers of designers. You certainly cannot say that it should be more than one without specifying who or what is doing the designing.
ringo writes: I haven't commented on how many are required. Yes you have. "more than one". "Plurality". "Multiplicity". Etc. If you now agree that without specifying who or what is doing the designing there is no more basis for saying "more than one" than there is for saying "less than a thousand" - Then we agree. There is no basis for any conclusion at all and the whole premise of the thread is misguided.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Only by circular logic.It's because they specify the designer they want that they get the designer they want.
They have specified their designer. And based on this specification only one designer is logically necessary. Straggler writes:
If I specify that the design team is a herd of unicorns and then come to the conclusion that the design team is a herd of unicorns, that would also be circular logic.
Their comments are entirely logically consistent with the designer they have specified. Straggler writes:
You can't just preordain the number either by your specification. The only stipulation here is "design". You don't get to pick your favourite flavour of designer.
Unless that which is doing the designing is specified you cannot say anything at all about numbers of designers. Straggler writes:
I haven't commented on how many are required. ringo writes:
Yes you have. "more than one". "Plurality". "Multiplicity". Etc. I haven't commented on how many are required. I have said that if "design" is taken as a given, then reality suggests that plural is more likely than singular.
Straggler writes:
As I've said - about four times in this very message in the hope that you'll catch one of them - you can't pre-specify who or what is doing the designing and then logically conclude that that who or what is singular. If you now agree that without specifying who or what is doing the designing there is no more basis for saying "more than one" than there is for saying "less than a thousand".... Edited by ringo, : Math failure: "five" --> "four". If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: It's because they specify the designer they want that they get the designer they want. They specify the designer they want and get the singular designer they want and you make comparisons with zebras and elephants and get the multiplicity of designers you want. Both approaches are equally nonsensical.
Ringo writes: I have said that if "design" is taken as a given, then reality suggests that plural is more likely than singular. By "reality" do you mean examples of material entities that inhabit our universe? Or do you mean something else? If so what?
ringo writes: The only stipulation here is "design". You don't get to pick your favourite flavour of designer. Unless that which is doing the designing is specified (or assumed) you cannot say anything at all about numbers of designers. You cannot say it is one. And you cannot say that it should be more than one. You cannot say anything meaningful at all.
ringo writes: As I've said - about four times in this very message in the hope that you'll catch one of them - you can't pre-specify who or what is doing the designing and then logically conclude that that who or what is singular. Without making some invalid assumption about the nature of the designer you cannot come to any conclusion about numbers of designers at all. The IDist conclusion of one designer is based on an assumption. Your conclusion of more than one is equally based on an assumption. It's assumptions all the way down. In either case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ringo writes:
I make comparisons with reality and get the logical conclusion. I don't have a vested interest in what that conclusion is.
... you make comparisons with zebras and elephants and get the multiplicity of designers you want. Straggler writes:
We can only reason from what we know and IDists pretend to be doing that. Unless you can connect immaterial un-universal entities to what we do know, you can't legitimately use them as new knowledge or as stepping stones to other immaterial un-universes.
By "reality" do you mean examples of material entities that inhabit our universe? Straggler writes:
Sure we can. If we find hoofprints by the water hole, we can conclude that they were more likely made by zebras than by unicorns. There's no invalid assumption involved because we know something about zebras. And one of the things that we know about zebras is that they travel in herds, so it's perfectly valid to conclude that several zebras is more likely than one. Without making some invalid assumption about the nature of the designer you cannot come to any conclusion about numbers of designers at all. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: I make comparisons with reality and get the logical conclusion. So these real entities on which you are basing your evidenced conclusion regarding the multiplicity of designers - What are they? Humans? Elephants? Zebras? Chipmunks? How many of these real entities are required to design the universe?
ringo writes: I make comparisons with reality and get the logical conclusion. Based on the same comparison with reality the number of designers would be a whole number in quite a limited range. More than 1 but fewer than a 1000 for example. What is the optimum size of a design team of such real entities? As already discussed for humans it is reckoned by psychologists to be about 12.
ringo writes: And one of the things that we know about zebras is that they travel in herds, so it's perfectly valid to conclude that several zebras is more likely than one. Based on zebra herd size the number of designers would be between 10 and 200.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Ringo.
Apologies for my late arrival: I've been debating whether to join for awhile now.
ringo writes: And one of the things that we know about zebras is that they travel in herds, so it's perfectly valid to conclude that several zebras is more likely than one. I dispute this whole line of argumentation. In contrast to zebras and unicorns, a solitary designer can belong to a population and still be a solitary designer. So, population size need not be a consideration for designers at all. ----- All that need be considered is the number of designers requisite to explain the evidence of design. Without the consideration of population sizes, to the best of my ability, here are the types of evidence that are required to support the hypotheses of different numbers of designers:
(This is, of course, ruling out the possibility of directly observing the designers at work.) Without considering the actual evidence yet, I would conclude that, in principle, one designer is more parsimonious than two designers. Edited by Bluejay, : Shortening. Edited by Bluejay, : More shortening. Edited by Bluejay, : Groan. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I dispute this whole line of argumentation. In contrast to zebras and unicorns, a solitary designer can belong to a population and still be a solitary designer. So, population size need not be a consideration for designers at all. It really has nothing to do with 'populations', though. Everything we know of comes in plurals; the only things that do not come in plurals are those things that cannot be plural by definition (the center of a particular circle, for example). Unless the IDists/Creos can show why a designer of life must be singular by definition, or present evidence that only one designer was at work, then there is little reason to conclude as much; we'd be better sticking with the default of 'where there is one designer, there is bound to be more'.
Without considering the actual evidence yet, I would conclude that, in principle, one designer is more parsimonious than two designers. Ringo's argument still stands. Nevertheless, I've introduced a method that we might be able to use to determine the number of designers:
quote: I think if you run through the steps, you'll find it quite impossible to hold to both the position that life was designed and the position that there was only one designer. The two views are simply not compatible given the evidence. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Bluejay writes:
"Can be", sure. But I'm arguing against the assumption that only one member of that population is a designer, which is not parsimonious. In contrast to zebras and unicorns, a solitary designer can belong to a population and still be a solitary designer. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
We've already agreed that that number can not be determined. Therefore, the number "one" is invalid and the proposition stands: Two hundred designers are as valid a conclusion as one. How many of these real entities are required to design the universe? If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Jon.
Jon writes: It really has nothing to do with 'populations', though. Everything we know of comes in plurals; the only things that do not come in plurals are those things that cannot be plural by definition (the center of a particular circle, for example). Design is a historical act, not a characteristic that defines a group of entities. For example, insisting that things come in plurals would have us believing that there is more than one writer of Moby-Dick, more than one painter of Mona Lisa, more than one actor portraying Jack Sparrow, and a committee of people posting under each EvC user name. It's nonsense. Some acts are legitimately attributable to singular sources. Thus, you can't argue that "designers" are things that must come in plurals: especially if you're talking about the designer(s) of a specific design project. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Bluejay writes:
You have the analogy wrong. Observing that things come in plurals has us believing that every book in the library wasn't written by the same author, every painting in the museum wasn't painted by the same painter, every movie ever made didn't star Johnny Depp and all of EvC wasn't created by one poster. For example, insisting that things come in plurals would have us believing that there is more than one writer of Moby-Dick, more than one painter of Mona Lisa, more than one actor portraying Jack Sparrow, and a committee of people posting under each EvC user name. Edited by ringo, : Spellinge. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: We've already agreed that that number can not be determined. In the absence of any specifics about the designer any comment about the number of designers is necessarily based on additional assumptions.
ringo writes: Therefore, the number "one" is invalid and the proposition stands: The fact that the number "one" is based on an invalid assumption does nothing to validate the assumption you are making regarding the relevance of herds of zebras (etc.) to arrive at the conclusion of "some".
ringo writes: Two hundred designers are as valid a conclusion as one. Indeed. Because in the absence of any specifics about the designer any comment about the number of designers is just nonsense. This includes your supposedly evidenced "some".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
"Some" just means an undetermined number. If you know of a better English word to convey that concept, I'd be glad to consider switching to it. The fact that the number "one" is based on an invalid assumption does nothing to validate the assumption you are making regarding the relevance of herds of zebras (etc.) to arrive at the conclusion of "some". If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: "Some" just means an undetermined number. "Some" as insisted upon by you throughout this thread means a number greater than one based on the assumption that some entirely unspecified designer is comparable to zebras or elephants or humans in some way.
ringo writes: If you know of a better English word to convey that concept, I'd be glad to consider switching to it. In the absence of any specifics or assumptions about the designer any comment on numbers at all is simply nonsensical. Even the intentional vaguety of "some" won't save you from that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
If you can think of a word to use in place of _______, which is a bit too vague, I'll be glad to consider switching. "Some" as insisted upon by you throughout this thread means a number greater than one.... If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024