Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
293 online now:
DrJones*, GDR, kjsimons, marc9000 (4 members, 289 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,897 Year: 21,933/19,786 Month: 496/1,834 Week: 496/315 Day: 92/82 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is ID properly pursued?
taiji2
Member (Idle past 1799 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 81 of 94 (737094)
09-17-2014 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-16-2004 12:36 PM


well done
RAZD,
Well thought out. Lucid. Comprehensive. I look forward to reading the rest of the thread. I hope you will entertain my questions and comments as I go along.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2004 12:36 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 09-17-2014 8:51 AM taiji2 has responded

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 1799 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 83 of 94 (737491)
09-26-2014 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by RAZD
09-17-2014 8:51 AM


Re: well done
RAZD,

After the fiasco of my previous thread, I am shifting here to present my thoughts.

My first suggestion is to drop the ID reference and substitute intelligent laws in its place. This unhooks discussion from the poisoned well of previous theological and political debate where ID has an established meaning that is problematic to the pursuit of truth. Use of the word design has been problematic as well, with no consensus of what design is or what it means.

Laws on the other hand is specific. There should be little ambiguity as to what is being spoken of when laws of nature/science are invoked. Laws of nature/science exist. The sciences are based on these laws. Proper pursuit of intelligent laws should seek to establish the source and chronology of these laws and determine whether the laws derive from an intelligent source or not.

The proper pursuit of Intelligent Laws should seek evidence of an intelligence, not a deity. There would be the simple question of determining whether the laws derived out of chaos or from an aware intelligence. Speculations to put a face on this intelligence would offer nothing to the discussion. Primal intelligence IS or IS NOT would be the only issue on the table.

Should Intelligent Laws ever be properly pursued and it be resolved likely that intelligence is primal, then of course the many competitors for putting a face on that intelligence can have at it. Jehovah, Allah, super-dimensional pin-ball players causing 3 dimensional event horizons on fourth dimensional black holes, etc.. Arguing those choices are moot unless it is first established that intelligence is or is not at the root of it all.

Proper pursuit of intelligent laws should begin at the beginning. Science should be utilized to establish a chronology for laws of nature/science. In other words, how old are the laws? Science should be utilized to establish whether the laws are eternal and unchanging. Are laws front-end fact or do laws evolve with a changing universe? Science should take these questions as far as they can be taken with observation and statistical inference.

This is an opening thought. A name change seems to be a necessity if anyone ever expects to take the discussion away from political intrigue and into serious pursuit of truth.


The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.

The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.

The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.

The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 09-17-2014 8:51 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Coyote, posted 09-26-2014 12:33 AM taiji2 has responded
 Message 85 by ringo, posted 09-26-2014 12:25 PM taiji2 has not yet responded
 Message 88 by Stile, posted 09-26-2014 2:54 PM taiji2 has responded

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 1799 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 89 of 94 (737542)
09-26-2014 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Coyote
09-26-2014 12:33 AM


Re: Some definitions
Thank you Coyote.

I do not disagree with what you say. I threw out intelligent laws (as an alternative to ID) with reference to laws of science as a preliminary attempt to establish terms within which conversation could be taken forward without objection over semantics. I had thought that perhaps laws would not be objectionable given their wide acceptance by science. I obviously was wrong.

I personally would be happy with any designation which raises the question of whether front-end intelligence could be involved in the emergence of nature. As RAZD has stated, and I agree, answers to what is the proper pursuit of ???? cannot go forward without science. That given, the terms to be used while doing the science must not be objectionable to scientists.

I would therefore suggest that RAZD get a consensus of what would be an appropriate descriptor which would not offend and alienate scientists invited to the discussion.


The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.

The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.

The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.

The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Coyote, posted 09-26-2014 12:33 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 1799 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


(1)
Message 90 of 94 (737544)
09-26-2014 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Stile
09-26-2014 2:54 PM


Re: well done
Stile,
Thank you.

Your quesions give me much food for thought and cannot be answered quickly.

I will take the time and give that thought. This reply is to just let you know that your questions are received and I am working on it.


The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.

The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.

The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.

The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Stile, posted 09-26-2014 2:54 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 1799 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 92 of 94 (737673)
09-28-2014 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Stile
09-26-2014 2:54 PM


taiji2 writes:

The proper pursuit of Intelligent Laws should seek evidence of an intelligence, not a deity. There would be the simple question of determining whether the laws derived out of chaos or from an aware intelligence.


Stile writes:

Fantastic.

The only problem is identifying whether or not a law is naturally derived or intelligently derived.
What are the defining characteristics of each?

Even though I said it was a simple question, I did not say it was a simple answer. I cannot jump to any conclusions as I am certainly not a scientist nor am I a philosopher. I am, however, an avid reader of both and think myself capable of honest curiosity along the way. Rational thought should not be presumed contained only within the confines of any profession.

I think you indeed see the one problem intelligent pursuit of ????? should attempt to solve. I believe it can neither be solved alone by science nor by philosophy. Perhaps the ideal would be analogous to Plato's concept of the perfect ruler, the philosopher king. In this pursuit, the ideal participants might be the philosopher scientists.


The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.

The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.

The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.

The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Stile, posted 09-26-2014 2:54 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Pressie, posted 09-29-2014 5:52 AM taiji2 has not yet responded
 Message 94 by Larni, posted 09-29-2014 6:39 AM taiji2 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019