Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 256 of 377 (613570)
04-26-2011 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by ringo
04-25-2011 10:20 AM


Re: How Many Elephants Does It Take To Design The Universe?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by ringo, posted 04-25-2011 10:20 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by ringo, posted 04-26-2011 10:25 AM Straggler has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 257 of 377 (613588)
04-26-2011 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Straggler
04-26-2011 7:40 AM


Going in Circles
Straggler writes:
They have specified their designer. And based on this specification only one designer is logically necessary.
Only by circular logic.It's because they specify the designer they want that they get the designer they want.
Straggler writes:
Their comments are entirely logically consistent with the designer they have specified.
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.
Straggler writes:
Unless that which is doing the designing is specified you cannot say anything at all about numbers of designers.
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.
Straggler writes:
ringo writes:
I haven't commented on how many are required.
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:
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"....
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.
Edited by ringo, : Math failure: "five" --> "four".

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2011 7:40 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2011 10:48 AM ringo has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 258 of 377 (613591)
04-26-2011 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by ringo
04-26-2011 10:25 AM


Re: Going in Circles
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by ringo, posted 04-26-2011 10:25 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by ringo, posted 04-26-2011 11:15 AM Straggler has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 259 of 377 (613597)
04-26-2011 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Straggler
04-26-2011 10:48 AM


Re: Going in Circles
ringo writes:
... you make comparisons with zebras and elephants and get the multiplicity of designers you want.
I make comparisons with reality and get the logical conclusion. I don't have a vested interest in what that conclusion is.
Straggler writes:
By "reality" do you mean examples of material entities that inhabit our universe?
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.
Straggler writes:
Without making some invalid assumption about the nature of the designer you cannot come to any conclusion about numbers of designers at all.
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.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2011 10:48 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2011 11:28 AM ringo has replied
 Message 261 by Blue Jay, posted 04-26-2011 12:14 PM ringo has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 260 of 377 (613601)
04-26-2011 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by ringo
04-26-2011 11:15 AM


Re: Going in Circles
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by ringo, posted 04-26-2011 11:15 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by ringo, posted 04-26-2011 12:45 PM Straggler has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 261 of 377 (613621)
04-26-2011 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by ringo
04-26-2011 11:15 AM


Re: Going in Circles
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:
  1. For "at least 1 designer": evidence of design
  2. For "at least 2 designers": (i) evidence of design, plus (ii) evidence distinguishing the work of Designer A from the work of Designer B
  3. For "at least 3 designers": (i) evidence of design, (ii) evidence distinguishing the work of Designer A form the work of Designer B; plus (iii) evidence distinguishing the work of Designer B from the work of Designer C; plus (iv) evidence distinguishing the work of Designer A from the work of Designer C
(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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by ringo, posted 04-26-2011 11:15 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Jon, posted 04-26-2011 12:36 PM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 263 by ringo, posted 04-26-2011 12:40 PM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 274 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-26-2011 8:23 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 262 of 377 (613624)
04-26-2011 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Blue Jay
04-26-2011 12:14 PM


Re: Going in Circles
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:
Jon in Message 9:
[If] we can look at the nature of the 'design', we should be able to figure out the competence of the designer(s) and from there make a rough guess as to how many there were(/are).
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Blue Jay, posted 04-26-2011 12:14 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Blue Jay, posted 04-26-2011 5:28 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 263 of 377 (613625)
04-26-2011 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Blue Jay
04-26-2011 12:14 PM


Re: Going in Circles
Bluejay writes:
In contrast to zebras and unicorns, a solitary designer can belong to a population and still be a solitary designer.
"Can be", sure. But I'm arguing against the assumption that only one member of that population is a designer, which is not parsimonious.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Blue Jay, posted 04-26-2011 12:14 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Blue Jay, posted 04-27-2011 1:39 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 264 of 377 (613626)
04-26-2011 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Straggler
04-26-2011 11:28 AM


Re: Going in Circles
Straggler writes:
How many of these real entities are required to design the universe?
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.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2011 11:28 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2011 6:12 PM ringo has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 265 of 377 (613672)
04-26-2011 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Jon
04-26-2011 12:36 PM


Re: Going in Circles
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Jon, posted 04-26-2011 12:36 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by ringo, posted 04-26-2011 5:40 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 266 of 377 (613676)
04-26-2011 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Blue Jay
04-26-2011 5:28 PM


Re: Going in Circles
Bluejay writes:
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.
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.
Edited by ringo, : Spellinge.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Blue Jay, posted 04-26-2011 5:28 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 267 of 377 (613684)
04-26-2011 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by ringo
04-26-2011 12:45 PM


Re: Going in Circles
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".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by ringo, posted 04-26-2011 12:45 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by ringo, posted 04-26-2011 6:47 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 273 by Jon, posted 04-26-2011 7:47 PM Straggler has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 268 of 377 (613688)
04-26-2011 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Straggler
04-26-2011 6:12 PM


Re: Going in Circles
Straggler writes:
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".
"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.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2011 6:12 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2011 6:59 PM ringo has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 269 of 377 (613691)
04-26-2011 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by ringo
04-26-2011 6:47 PM


Re: Going in Circles
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by ringo, posted 04-26-2011 6:47 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by ringo, posted 04-26-2011 7:10 PM Straggler has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 270 of 377 (613693)
04-26-2011 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Straggler
04-26-2011 6:59 PM


Re: Going in Circles
Straggler writes:
"Some" as insisted upon by you throughout this thread means a number greater than one....
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.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2011 6:59 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2011 7:19 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024